



V'" 



^ <y ^ n ^ «0 

•'=>, 0 N 0 ^ 

»V Vl 


\ W *5rs.^A\h^ ✓ 






aV s- 0‘ V 

^ ^ ^‘r iV 

- M^z/h t •'^ “ 

y> 


*'-'*« ^ C 0 -e ^'^o' ^ ' 

>-„„’< A >* '*oo' 

t ^ % 

i'*'\^'*'' ,. A *'* iTo’”*^*i ii*'A^' 
v'o'v'/,-o* .o'* »'•», •■^. \> ''••' 

» JFm»^', ^ 4» ’■ .^sS.v '^. ,t, » 



- .A> AAA* A * 

0 ^ ^ .A 





/> << 


o xo . 

k\‘ '*' 0 '>^ ■<^‘ 

C^ J O ^ 

03 C^ ^ </^ fC 



o C^ ® 

^ SLV 

'''' vT^'' <A ^ ° * 

^ J>- .0^ v^ ^^ *^ '. 

^ O f i . ^ -f 

X V ^ ^ “V 

^ 4 ^ 

- -.V 





cP 

^ O Vy 

o. ■ A ^ av ' ^ ^ ^ ^ ' '^ > . 

A' “'' • 'A: /V ° ‘ ‘'/ ‘ ~ ‘'''°"'' * 


<. o o' * 

"■ 4 *7" 

> Cl^ 

.j. 

l"^’ Ar ''a, 

^ .'J N 0 



* ■^^/-s*'*' K'- '^- '■ ^ "*■ >!^ 

a” 0*' C)_ p -^/ A q!' . ^ *0 ro ^'*■ oA 

’ ~ “ A .' •», % ‘ ' v/o -. A ‘ - V . V. „ ,\ ’''' “ o ■ 

^ - -fN ^ <f', Y, Or O -A A or jA^I^/h ^ V- A*^ ^ 

'. ^•^ - t '^f. A -• 


aP. 




" aV tp 3 

<\V <p^ ^ 


“ ■=,;V' ”"'' a! «' a* ' V' c 0" - ^ 

V C. J. -t^ ^.J-^ • 

■’'oo'' 




.\V ^ ^GmBSii * 'K^ d • Sr fsf\^^j? Ip <^’ v» ^ 4 

iCV C.^ _ o ^ o ^ 



A * 

' ‘ * Ar '°"' \A c » " ' »' • * ' 

. t<- ' 

«’ x® °., 




« 




0, ^ 


''.0 ^ 

.% < 

x'^ ^ • 

^ c^ y 0 rv 

'*' 0 N 0 aO* 

^ vO^ '»- ' 

%A / ' 

^ /% 1?I5S* 

^ ^ ^/f?Pp2^^ ^ vj'^ '» A-IsCN^ % A5 

^ Y ^ ^ Ail ■x'^ 

^ /aX „ ■< f:4. ^ o ■' ■> 

X°°Ar i- 

•S' * , „ o’’ ^,0^ 'o **•, ^ .'■^ 

A A ’ " ' vV s' 

<1 ^ A -V A*^ ^ j!e ^ ^ ^ 

sX’ ,. ^ cA , av ^ 

sT A 'O'. ^ ' c'i o * 





0 « X 



/ IV « S _ V I fi . 

^ 'O C> 

-< K « 

' ^ <1 » 





« O VJ 1^ 




■A 




^ A. :'^^./)h. 


0 H 0 


<» 7^’ 1 

^ .0' 


0 









' ^ " "" " " c 0 « 


^ ^ 


a> » ' * " ./V s>\ s ' * • - ^ 

A^ r <P ^ ^ ^ ' S- /■ 




<3^ ^ 

^ . -rail- "iTTir n rw" -w a-,'^ 

^ « ft ^ , j 

<• °o cP^CW’ '■^ 

^ ^ 4^ \M/J y^ ^ --A A 1 

ft O o' ft 

ft , * 

^ -r^. ... . 

av ..0 -• \- ..., '^*»«»’ aO’ ''*Tr."'\«*'' .. 

-®"r. ' 

/ ft ft S '* ^0 <* ^ O , V A ^ ^7^7^'''" ^0^ 




^ '"i- . „ .oP 


. '^■fj ^ ' 

s' ^ ^ ^Kys^ * rv _ 

.y 0^■^ 

^ ^ 0 • V .A 'o ^ . s 












ft 'tj 

,0 

<■ ^0 

' ft^ 


s 


K J^W 
■< tfc^^Bs 





^ V V ^ 


.0 O 


‘J>- -^„ 

a' c » ~ ' » -^b “ • ' 

^ ■» .-.SSCSrv <** ^ 

p 

« o o' 



' C^ 


' ' Y ft O ^ ^ 9 > C ft ft , N 0 ’ « I A ^ 

' ^ ■ * ' •- /A^i;r= ^ 





'4 « 


% '"^TT' ' aC>'*' ^ * 

'. ■’'oo' > » 

<* 


.' i’^^ '^.I‘ ' 

'V “',p. i> 1^ 


't> *f ^ , S ' . <* ^ 0 

* ft ft ^ tA . V I B « ® 

^ 9^ r0‘ X* 

", '^OO^ 

" )5 - 

f- y 



^ ^ 'Ku * ® \^ '^. ^ 

' .A^' '^^ *'» ,^o’* ^Cp '^o, '■r^.' A*-' '» '"o^.o 

" \> s'"'<, > ,n> »'• 

> r 


' %'f’^ .. 

v' ^\^'>, > 

S'*' *:Sk''- * 

^ aa 






^ 0 ft X ^ A 

s .# r° 

^ ^ '^y. v-i*' ' 

5^- »' 1,0 

:r* V 





" aV </> 

^ A^ ft 

"v 




^ A,*^ 9<> o 

o o' ft ii ^ ^ - ‘^^rma ft ^ 

I> 





-»>oo• • ^>7^~»VAV.„, 




«I A* .^ 

\> A 



”' \#' A-'‘->n»’ *0^ At. ».,>”■ \'i'' .. '■%. 

V> s'**'.,'> .o'" ’■'•“' A. nA'A1''v > 

' '* ''"^i/fk- A„.A 
















w 




I 



i 


t* 


I 


I 




< . 

e I 





t 



Vlfll. .-'I 


^ -V 




( 


. r 



i 






t 


'•♦ ■■ 

\ 

4 


4 1 , 




4 


f 


Tfc 


« » 





't. 

Wi 

% 


4 





i 





f 






1 ■- 

4 <. 





CONFlDE?fflAL! 

-- 

'TO BE HELD IN CONFIDENCE, and no portion, synopsis, 
^ or intimation to be -published or given out until morning 
papers of MONDAY, JULY 29, 1912. 


STATEMENT 

RELATING TO 

Contests Over Seats in the 
Republican National 
Convention 


1912 



WASHINGTON 

1912 








f 



* 





» 




- V 



,N; 








OFFICIAL STATEMENT 


SHOWING CONTESTS FOR SEATS IN THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION OF 1912, 
THE DISPOSITION OF THEM BY THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE, BY THE COMMITTEE ON 
CREDENTIALS, AND BY THE CONVENTION ITSELF. 


The national committee which passed upon the contests of 1912 
was the committee chosen in 1908 when Roosevelt was the leader of 
the party, at a time when his influence dominated the convention. 

There were 252 delegates to the Republican national convention 
of 1912 whose seats were contested; 238 of these were Taft delegates 
whom Roosevelt people desired to unseat and 14 were Roosevelt dele¬ 
gates whom Taft people sought to unseat. In accordance with the 
rules and long-established usage of the party, such contests are, in 
the first inslance, heard by the Republican national committee, con¬ 
sisting of one member from each State or Territory. This commit¬ 
tee decides which names shall go upon the temporary roll of the 
convention. When a temporary organization of the convention has 
been effected, there is elected a committee on credentials, consisting 
of one member from each State and Territory, to which an appeal lies 
from the decision of the national committee, and from the decision 
of the committee on credentials a contest may be brought to the con¬ 
vention itself. 

Among the delegates whose seats were contested were 74 delegates 
at large from the 14 States of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, 
Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Mis¬ 
souri, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. The Missouri case was 
decided by the national committee unanimously in favor of the 
Roosevelt delegates, and no appeal was taken to the committee on 
credentials. 

The Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Virgina cases 
were decided against Roosevelt contestants by practically unani¬ 
mous votes of the national committee, and were not appealed to the 
committee on credentials. 

In the Kentucky case there were a few votes in the national com¬ 
mittee against the Taft delegates at large retaining their seats, but 
the majority in their favor was overwhelming, and no appeal was 
taken by the Roosevelt people to the committee on credentials. 



4 


In the Georgia case the Taft delegates sustained the right to their 
seats by a practically unanimous vote in the national committee, and 
in the comjnittee on credentials the vote was entirely unanimous. 

In the Indiana case the seats of the Taft delegates at large were 
confirmed by the unanimous vote of the national committee, the 
member from that State not voting. In the committee on cre¬ 
dentials 13 votes only were cast in favor of seating the Roosevelt con¬ 
testants. 

In Mississippi the Taft delegates at large established the right to 
their seats by the unanimous vote of the national committee, and also 
by the practically unanimous vote of the credentials committee. 

There were only four States—Arizona, Michigan, Texas, and 
Washington, having in all 28 delegates, including six district dele¬ 
gates from the State of Washington—where the contests were at 
all worthy of the name, and in none of the 14 States did the con¬ 
testants at large bring the matter to a record vote in the conven¬ 
tion, and no roll call was demanded in any such case. 

The seats of 178 district delegates were contested. In these con¬ 
gressional districts Taft contests were brought in the fourth Cali¬ 
fornia, the eleventh Kentucky, the fifth Missouri, and the third and 
fifteenth Texas districts, involving 10 seats. The Taft delegates from 
the fourth California district were given their seats, and one Taft 
delegate from the eleventh Kentucky district was seated. The other 
seven seats were decided in favor of the Roosevelt claimants. 

In no other convention was so much care exercised or pains taken 
or so much time devoted to the careful investigation and fair de¬ 
termination of contests. No delegate was permitted to vote upon 
any contest affecting the right to his own seat. In no other con¬ 
vention were there ever presented, manifestly for the deception of 
the public, so many wholly unwarranted and unjustified contests. 
There were filed contests against 238 Taft delegates, but in two 
cases only, involving four delegates—two from California and two 
from the ninth district of Alabama—was there a roll call de¬ 
manded in the convention. In the California case the right of 
the Taft delegates to their seats was sustained by a vote of 542 to 
529, and in the Alabama case by a much larger vote. In a very 
large number of cases the right of the Taft delegates was affirmed 
by unanimous consent of the convention, and in others by a viva voce 
vote, no roll call being demanded. 

The Washington Times, a daily newspaper owned by Frank 
Munsey, an ardent Roosevelt supporter, in its issue of June 9, 1912, 


5 


contains the following statement showing the real foundation of 
most of the Roosevelt contests: 

On the day when Roosevelt formally announced that he was a candidate 
something over a hundred delegates had actually been selected. When Sena¬ 
tor Dixon took charge of the campaign a tabulated showing of delegates se¬ 
lected to date would have looked hopelessly one sided. Moreover, a number of 
Southern States had called their conventions for early dates and there was no 
chance to develop the real Roosevelt strength in the great Northern States 
till later. For psychological effect as a move in practical politics it was neces¬ 
sary for the Roosevelt people to start contests on these early Taft selections 
in order that a tabulation of delegate strength could be put out that would 
show Roosevelt holding a good hand. In the game a table showing Taft 150, 
Roosevelt 19, contested none, would not be very much calculated to inspire 
confidence, whereas one showing Taft 23, Roosevelt 19, contested 127, looked 
very different. That is the whole story of the larger number of Southern con¬ 
tests that were started early in the game. It was never expected that they 
would be taken very seriously. They served a useful purpose, and now the 
national committee is deciding them in favor of Taft in most cases without 
real division. 

The motion of Gov. Hadley to strike out names from the tempo¬ 
rary roll and insert others in their places covered only 92, including 
18 from Virginia and 2 from the District of Columbia, the contests 
against whom were so frivolous that they were subsequently aban¬ 
doned. They were not presented to the committee on credentials 
at all, although a colored man from the fifth congressional district 
of Virginia appeared to contest the seat of the Roosevelt delegates 
from, that district. No evidence whatever was presented to the na¬ 
tional committee to sustain the contest filed against the Taft dele¬ 
gates elected from the Dist^ct of Columbia, and the Roosevelt 
shelving in the Virginia cases was scarcely better. The claim of 
‘^stolen’^ delegates is reduced therefore from 238 to 72, and this 
list includes 2 delegates from the eleventh congressional district 
of Kentucky, 1 of whom was given Roosevelt, and 2 from the 
ninth congressional district of Tennessee, a case in which his con¬ 
test managers had so little confidence that they abandoned it and 
never presented it to the committee on credentials. The list as finally 
made up is as follows: 

Delegate?. 


Ninth Alabama. 2 

Arizona, at large. 6 

Fifth Arkansas. 2 

Fourth California. 2 

Thirteenth Indiana. 2 

Seventh Kentucky. 2 








6 


Delegates. 


Eighth Kentuckj^. 2 

Eleventh Kentucky. 2 

Michigan, at large. 6 

Third Oklahoma. 2 

Second Tennessee. 2 

Ninth Tennessee. 

Texas, at large... 

First, second, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and fourteenth 

Texas . 18 

Washington, at large. 8 

First, second, and third Washington. 6 

Total. 72 


Fraudulent Roosevelt Oontests. 

In the four Southern States—Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, and 
Florida—where practically complete sets of Roosevelt contesting 
delegates were named, the alleged conventions which named them 
met from two to three months after the regular Republican organiza¬ 
tions in those States had called their conventions and duly elected 
Taft delegates to the national convention. That these contests 
were based upon unworthy motives and were devised for the sole 
purpose of deceiving the public and making trouble for Taft, is 
apparent from the fact that the regularly elected Taft delegates in 
every case were seated by a practically unanimous vote, the Roose¬ 
velt members of the committees joining with the Taft members in 
the votes. In Alabama, for example, the regular conventions were 
held in February and March, the State convention at Birmingham 
and the district conventions in their respective districts, while the 
Roosevelt conventions both State and district were all held in Bir¬ 
mingham May 11. The regular conventions in Georgia were held 
generally in February or the early part of March. The Roosevelt 
conventions were all held May 17 or 18. The Taft conventions in 
Florida were all held Febmary 6, while the Roosevelt conventions 
were all held May 18, more than three months later, except one which 
met April 30. The regularly elected Taft delegates from Virginia 
at large were chosen in a State convention which met March 12. The 
Roosevelt delegates at large were named at a mass meeting, held with¬ 
out any party authority whatever on May 16. The other Roosevelt 
delegates from this State were chosen in every case substantially 
two months after the regular Taft delegates had been elected. It is 
needless to say that all these southern contests, the object of which is 


iM 00 













7 


so aptly set forth in the quotation from the Washington Times as 
quoted abo\e, were financed by money which came from the North. 

A careful review of the law and the evidence which was pre¬ 
sented to the national committee and the committee on credentials 
will satisfy any one who is desirous of knowing the truth that 
these contests were decided strictly on their merits. 

ALABAMA. 

Contests from Alabama were filed with the Republican national 
committee against the Taft delegates at large and the delegates from 
the first, second, fifth, sixth, and ninth congressional districts. The 
contests from the second and sixth districts were withdrawn. The 
other contests were presented to the national committee and de¬ 
cided in favor of the Taft delegates. Those from the State at 
large and the first district were decided unanimously on roll call, 
and that from the fifth district by viva voce vote. The one from 
the ninth district was decided by a vote of 38 for the Taft dele¬ 
gates and 15 for the Roosevelt delegates, the minority including the 
chairman of the committee, Mr. Rosewater. Only one of these con¬ 
tests was taken before the committee on credentials, the others having 
been abandoned. 


NINTH ALABAMA DISTRICT. 

In the ninth district, which includes the county of Jefferson with 
the city of Birmingham and three other counties, the district com¬ 
mittee split and two calls were issued and two conventions held. The 
chairman of the committee was a Roosevelt man, but a majority of 
the members were favorable to Taft. There were three disputed 
questions of fact involved in this case. The first was the right 
of the chairman to fill vacancies which existed in the committee. 
He filled these vacancies with Roosevelt men and based his right to 
do so upon authority shown by the minutes of the last meeting of 
the district committee. The minutes themselves were not presented, 
but a resolution was presented which had been adopted by the dis¬ 
trict committee authorizing the chairman to make certain original 
appointments for the purpose of increasing the membership of the 
committee. The resolution on its face showed the authority claimed 
by the chairman to fill all vacancies, but this part was clearly an ' 
interpolation. It was apparently an afterthought, and had been 
written in with a different kind of lead pencil from that used to 


8 


write the main body of the resolution. Affidavits were presented 
from some ten or twelve members of the committee who had attended 
this meeting and they testified that no authority had been given to 
the chairman of the committee to fill vacancies. Both the national 
committee and the committee on credentials were satisfied that the 
resolution had been tampered with and by interlineation had been 
doctored to show something which did not appear in the resolution 
as originally offered and adopted. 

The second disputed question of fact relates to the alleged resig¬ 
nation of Haiwey Hardin, a member of the district committee. There 
is no question about his having executed a resignation, but the paper 
was given in escrow’ to a man not a member of the committee, with 
the understanding that it was to be returned to Hardin in case he 
appeared in person at Birmingham to attend the meeting of the dis¬ 
trict committee called to meet there February 15, 1912. Mr. Hardin 
arrived in Birmingham the night of February 14 and demanded that 
his resignation be returned to him, which demand was refused. As 
his resignation was given on the express condition that it was not to 
take effect if he attended the meeting which was called for February 
15, and as he did appear and demand the return of his resignation 
before the committee met, the resignation ^vas clearly void and of no 
effect. The law in Alabama is very clear on this point. 

The third question of fact was whether one W. M. Latham was a 
member of the district committee, or whether James Latham was a 
member. There was ample evidence that W. M, Latham had been 
elected a member of the committee and that he had acted thereon. 
He gave his proxy for the meeting of the committee which was held 
February 15. There was some evidence on the other side, but the pre¬ 
ponderance of testimony sustained the claim of W. M. Latham that 
he was a member of the committee. 

If these three questions of fact are resolved in accordance with the 
clear preponderance of the testimony the delegates elected by the 
district convention which indorsed Taft were clearly entitled to 
their seats. As a matter of fact the merits of this controversy 
were passed upon by the persons most directly interested, the 
Republicans of the ninth congressional district of Alabama. The 
district consists of Bibb, Blount, Jefferson, and Perry Counties. The 
^ regular Republican organization in all these counties recognized the 
call of the Taft executive committee. The county executive com¬ 
mittees of Jefferson and Blount Counties called county conventions 
to elect delegates to the Taft congressional convention. The county 


9 


committees in Bibb and Perry Counties called mass conventions for 
the same purpose to be held on the same day. The delegate conven¬ 
tions of Jefferson and Blount Counties and the mass conventions of 
Bibb and Perry Counties elected delegates to the district convention 
under the terms of the call of the district executive committee, which 
was friendly to Taft. The regularity of these county organizations 
can not be attacked. They are the only Republican organizations 
in those counties, and are recognized by the present State executive 
committee and also by the former State committee, of which Joseph 
0. Thompson, an unsuccessful Roosevelt contestant from the State 
at large, was chairman. 

The same county conventions that elected delegates to the Taft dis¬ 
trict convention elected delegates to the State convention, which 
elected the Taft delegates from the State at large who were unani¬ 
mously seated in the Chicago convention. The Roosevelt faction 
held no meetings of any character whatsoever in Blount, Bibb, or 
Perry Counties, and held a mass meeting in Jefferson County which 
elected delegates to the Roosevelt district convention and also to the 
Roosevelt State convention. The delegates elected from the Roose¬ 
velt State convention were refused recognition at Chicago by the 
unanimous vote of the national committee. The Roosevelt district 
delegates selected in this district traced their title to the same source; 
their title was tainted with forgery and was no better than that of 
the Roosevelt delegates at large. The Taft delegates from the 
ninth congressional district of Alabama were unquestionably entitled 
to their seats in the national convention. 

ARIZONA. 

The executive committee of the Arizona State central committee, 
consisting of one member from each county in the State, together 
with the State chairman and secretary, met at Phoenix on May 1, 
1912, to prepare a call for a State convention to elect delegates to 
the Republican national convention. Although the Republican Party 
in Arizona had at its first State election pledged the passage of a 
presidential primary law, and although the Democrats had made a 
similar pledge in their platform, the legislature being in the control 
of the Democrats had failed to fulfill that pledge up to the time of 
the meeting of the executive committee. This left the State without 
any primary law for the election of delegates to the national conven¬ 
tions. It was finally decided unanimously by the executive com- 


10 


luittee—both Roosevelt and Taft members agreeing—that in the 
absence of a presidential primary law the various county committees 
be authorized to determine in what manner the delegates to the State 
convention should be elected, whether by the county committees, 
whose members had been elected at a State-wide primary in Decem¬ 
ber last, by direct primary election, or by a primary election of dele¬ 
gates to the county convention which should select delegates to the 
State convention. 

The call as issued required the counts committees to meet on the 
loth day of May to make this determination, and the appointment or 
election of delegates was set for the 25th day of May, and the State 
convention for June 3, at Tucson. The Roosevelt members of the ex¬ 
ecutive committee at this meeting declared their intention to hold 
prinraries in all counties in which they controlled the county cen¬ 
tral committees. Only two counties, Pinal and Graham, decided 
to hold primaries for the election of delegates to the State conven¬ 
tion, and in Graham County the Taft and Roosevelt members agreed 
upon this plan. In Cochise and Yuma Counties, where the Roose¬ 
velt members held a majority of the county committees, it was unani¬ 
mously decided that the committees should elect delegates to the 
State convention, for the reason that Arizona was without any pri¬ 
mary law applying to the election of delegates to national conven¬ 
tions, and for the reason that the party treasury was without funds 
to provide for primaries. This plan was also followed in the remain¬ 
ing counties of the State. 

MARICOPA COUNTY. 

In Maricopa County, however, a dispute arose as to whether the 
majority of the committee favored election by primary or by the 
committee. At the assembling of the county committee in that 
county on the 15th day of May, the chairman, a Roosevelt man, 
without waiting for a roll call, or for any motion, forthwith ap¬ 
pointed three Roosevelt men to constitute a committee on credentials. 
While this was still the subject of emphatic protest by the members, 
this committee within a few minutes returned and reported in favor 
of seating three proxies, in addition to the members of the committee 
present in person. These proxies all favored Roosevelt, but none 
were members of the committee. 

A point of order was made that the Chair had acted without 
authority in arbitrarily naming the committee on credentials. The 


11 


point of order was overruled by the Chair, whereupon appeal was 
taken from this decision and sustained. The Chair then reappointed 
the same committee on credentials, which retired. In the meantime, 
other proxies had been presented on behalf of members who were 
absent. The committee, after being out, considerably more than an 
hour, thereupon returned a second report recommending the rejec¬ 
tion of all proxies. This committee on credentials was composed 
exclusively of Roosevelt men, and examination of the proxies dis¬ 
closed the fact that if allowed, the Taft men would control the 
committee, but that if all proxies were rejected the Roosevelt men 
would be in control by a small margin. 

It had been the uniform practice to receive proxies of committee¬ 
men who were unable to attend, but in this instance it was sought 
to reject proxies on the ground, which is clearly untenable, that a 
proxy to be valid must be certified by the county chairmlan and 
secretary. The result, in effect, was that two meetings of the 
Maricopa central committee were held on the 15th, the one follow¬ 
ing the other, by one of which a call was issued, signed by the chair¬ 
man, for a primary to elect delegates to the State convention, to be 
held at Tucson June 3, 1912, and by the other a call was issued, 
signed by the secretary of the county committee and a pro tempore 
chairman, for a meeting of the county committee to select delegates 
to the said State convention at Tucson, being the plan adopted by 
a majority of the other counties in the State, including the counties 
of Cochise and Yuma, where the Roosevelt men were in control. 
The reason for this action in Maricopa, as in other counties, was the 
absence of any State law under which the primary could be held. 

The call for the election of delegates by the county committee in 
Maricopa County was signed by a majority of the members of the 
county central committee, a minority only signing the call for a 
primary. Contending that the call for a primary was clearly 
illegal, a majority of the committee advertised extensively in the 
newspapers of that community for some time prior to May 25, 
when delegates were to be elected, warning all Republicans, what¬ 
ever their affiliation, not to participate in the so-called Heard 
primary, on the ground that it was irregular and unauthorized. 
This public warning resulted in all of the La Follette following 
and all but 11 of the Taft Republicans in Maricopa County re¬ 
fusing to participate in the Heard primary. Two sets of delegates 
to the State convention were thus elected from this county. 


12 


STATE CONVENTION. 

A short time before the State convention, contests were started 
in several of the other counties to such an extent that a minority 
only of the delegates entitled to sit in the convention were un¬ 
contested. The chairman of the State central committee, learning of 
this situation, called a meeting of the executive committee, to be held 
at Tucson on the morning of June 1, two days before the date set for 
holding the convention, for the declared purpose of hearing all con¬ 
tests and making up the temporary roll. Notice was given by mail 
and wire to all county chairmen and all persons claiming to have 
been elected delegates to present credentials to the executive commit¬ 
tee at that time and place. The notice was also given through the 
newspapers, and contestants admitted full knowledge of the meeting 
of the comimittee to miake up the temporary roll. The committee was 
in attendance and prepared to receive credentials and hear contests 
from June 1, 10 o’clock, to the assembling of the convention on June 
3. Two sets of credentials were received from Cochise County, but be¬ 
cause of the fact that only the holders of one set appeared in person 
before the committee to make their argument it was decided to seat 
both delegations with one-half vote each, to the end that both might 
have full opportunity to be heard before the credentials committee 
to be named by the convention. No other contests were presented. 
Credentials were presented to the State executive committee from all 
the counties of the State, and the temporary roll of delegates was 
made up from the credentials as presented. 

The State convention assembled on June 3 at the place designated 
in the original call and was called to order by the chairman of the 
State central committee. The call was read by the secretary, and 
the chairman made a full statement of the circumstances under which 
the temporary roll had been made up. The chairman then read the 
temporary roll. The chairman then called for nominations for tem'- 
porary chairman, and J. J. Reddick, whose seat was not in contest, 
was nominated by an uncontested delegate. At this point objection 
was made by a person whose name was not on the temporary roll, 
who stated that he did not recognize the validity of the roll. A point 
of order was raised and sustained that this person was not a member 
of the convention. The chairman then asked if there were any other 
nominations; and none other being made, he put the question, and 
declared J. J. Reddick elected, and Mr. Reddick took his position as 


13 


chairman. At about this time a number of persons, including about 
17 whose names were on the temporary roll, rushed to the right-hand 
side of the hall, one of their number mounted the platform, and after 
15 or 20 minutes of noise and confusion they left the hall and did not 
return. The Arizona contest is the result of the proceedings so con¬ 
ducted during that space of time. It is contended that a valid con¬ 
vention was held in this manner and that the Roosevelt delegation, 
headed by Dwight B. Heard, was elected. A record of this so-called 
convention was presented, showing the appointment and report of 
committees and the election of delegates to the national convention. 
It was conceded that these reports, including that of the committee 
on credentials, were prepared in advance, that the committees did not 
retire, and that the reports were signed without change. 

It was conceded that the credentials of the contesting delegates 
from Maricopa County were not presented to the State committee or 
to the convention presided over by Mr. Reddick or to the committee 
on credentials appointed by that convention. 

The convention presided over by Mr. J. J. Reddick remained in 
the hall and in session for at least two hours and a half. Out of the 
93 delegates entitled to sit in the convention, as shown upon the 
temporary roll, 60 remained in the convention after the bolt, and 
also the 16 from Cochise County entitled to a half vote each. 

The usual committees were appointed and recess taken to await 
their reports, which were received and adopted by the conven¬ 
tion. The temporary roll was accepted and made the permanent 
roll of the convention; the temporary organization of the conven¬ 
tion was made the permanent organization; a number of speeches 
were made by delegates; a vote of thanks passed to the citizens of 
Tucson who had arranged for the entertainment and reception of 
this first Republican convention in the new State; and adjournment 
had in regular order. 

Of the uncontested delegates in the Tucson convention there was 
a clear majority of Taft delegates, so that had the convention itself 
made up the temporary roll and only the uncontested delegates been 
permitted to vote thereon, the Taft delegates would have been in 
the majority. 

The national committee and the committee on credentials decided 
that this convention was the only regular and legal convention held 
in the State of Arizona, and that the delegates and alternates elected 
by it were entitled to seats in the national convention. 


14 


ARKANSAS. 

Contests from Arkansas were filed with the national committee 
covering the delegates at large and those from the first, second, third, 
fourth, fifth, and seventh districts. The national committee seated 
the Taft delegates fromi the State at large by a vote of 52 to 0; from 
the first district by a vote of 49 to 2; from the second district by a 
vote of 47 to 0; from the third district by a vote of 51 to 0; from the 
fourth district by a vote of 48 to 0; from the fifth district by a vote 
of 42 to 10; and from the seventh district by a vote of 44 to 0. The 
original proposition of the Roosevelt national committeemen in the 
fifth district was to seat both delegations with a half vote each. This 
compromise which in itself was an evidence of lack of faith in the 
contest was voted down. Notice of appeal was given only in the case 
of the delegates from the first and fifth districts, and the latter case 
was the only one presented to the committee on credentials. 

, FIFTH ARKANSAS DISTRICT. 

The contesting delegation from' the fifth congressional district was 
represented by Mr. Sid B. Redding, clerk of the Federal courts at 
Little Rock. He was a contesting delegate before the 1908 conven¬ 
tion, but the national committee decided the case against him 
unanimously, and he did not appeal to the committee on credentials. 
The organization led by Mr. Redding, which was thus repudiated 
by the national convention four years ago, did not certify to the 
proper State election officers the candidate for Congress it named 
that year. It held no regular meeting in 1910 and did not name a 
candidate for Congress that year. The organization which was rec¬ 
ognized four years ago by the action of the national convention in 
seating its delegates placed a candidate for Congress in the field in 
1908 and again in 1910, and has been recognized generally as the 
regular Republican organization of that district. It called a district 
convention to meet at Little Rock, May 6, 1912, to nominate a can¬ 
didate for Congress and to elect two delegates and two alternates to 
the Republican national convention. The Redding faction issued 
a call for a congressional convention to be held at Little Rock on 
the same day the regular convention was to meet, but in a different 
hall, and delegates were directed to be elected at the same time and 
places as delegates to the regular convention. 

There was great disorder in some of the ward meetings in Little 


15 


Rock; there was some bloodshed and mutual charges of fraud and 
wrongdoing were made, but delegates were duly elected to the 
regular Republican convention which met according to the call. 
All its proceedings were in due and regular form. A contest was 
presented before the congressional convention from, only one county 
and both contestants were seated with a half vote each. The recog¬ 
nition of the Roosevelt claimants from the fifth congressional district 
of Arkansas would have meant a repudiation of the action of the 
national convention of 1908, and the national committee and the 
committee on credentials which met June, 1912, declined to take such 
action. Mr. Redding’s discredited organization had been defunct 
for four years, and was apparently resurrected this year only for 
the purpose of instituting a contest against the regularly elected 
delegates who were instructed for Taft. Mr. Redding gave but 
three days’ notice of the holding of his congressional convention. 

CALIFORNIA. 

The facts and the law in the fourth congressional district of Cali¬ 
fornia case are very simple, but there has been a very general mis¬ 
understanding about both. This congressional district lies wholly 
within the city and county of San Francisco, and was recognized 
to be a strong pro-Taft district. In the direct prcvsidential prefer¬ 
ence vote Taft received 9,622 votes in this district, Roosevelt 9,445 
votes, and La Follette 3,235 votes. All of the delegates on the Taft 
ticket received more votes in this district than did any of the dele¬ 
gates on the Roosevelt ticket. Tryon and Meyerfeld, the Taft dele¬ 
gates, received 10,507 votes and 10,531 votes, respectively, and 
Wheeler and Bancroft, the Roosevelt candidates, 10,240 votes and 
10,209 votes, respectively. This statement is certified to by the 
registrar of voters for the city and county of San Francisco, the offi¬ 
cial with whom the returns of the primary election were required by 
law to be filed. An attempt has been made to question this state- 
,ment of fact because some fourteen election precincts had been 
divided since the last general election, but there was evidence filed 
with the national committee showing that the change of boundary 
lines through these election precincts did not materially change the 
result, and that as a matter of fact the change, if any, was in favor 
of Taft. The total vote in these 14 precincts was: Wheeler, 695; 
Bancroft, 692; Tryon, 662; Meyerfeld, 666. If the votes in these 
precincts were divided and counted strictly in the district to which 



16 


they belonged after the boundary lines were changed, the difference 
in the vote in both districts would not be over 30 votes, and any 
difference throughout the entire fourth district would be in favor 
of Taft. There can absolutely be no honest dispute of the claim 
that the Taft delegates received 200 more votes in this district than 
the Roosevelt delegates. 

When the national committee met in the city of Washington in 
Hecember, 1911, a very vigorous effort was made to compel recog¬ 
nition of all State primary laws, but the committee finally decided 
to leave it entirely discretionary with each State and congressional 
committee whether or not to select delegates to the Chicago conven¬ 
tion in that manner. The exact terms of the call of the national 
committee are as follows: 

* * * provided that delegates and alternates, both from the State at 

large and from each congressional district, may be elected in conformity with 
the laws of the State in which the election occurs if the State committee or 
any such congressional committee so direct; but, provided further, that in no 
State shall an election he so held as to prevent the delegates from any con¬ 
gressional district and their alternates heing selected hy the Repuhlican electors 
of that district. ' 

A State-wide primary law like the one now in force in California, 
which was approved December 24, 1911, after the meeting of the 
national committee, did in this particular case attempt to prevent 
the Republican electors of the fourth congressional district of Cali¬ 
fornia from selecting their own delegates and alternates. Such a 
law is an attempt to revive the State unit law which was destroyed 
in the memorable national convention of 1880. Since that time the 
congressional district has been the unit of representation in national 
Republican conventions, and the national committee in its calls has 
always recognized that right. A State legislature has no more right 
to establish the unit rule against the will of the national convention 
than has a State convention. The action of the national convention 
in seating the two Taft delegates from the fourth congressional dis¬ 
trict of California was in strict accordance with the law and prece¬ 
dent established in 1880 and followed in unbroken line ever since. 
If State-wide primary laws had been recognized by Republican 
national conventions and had become universal, the 90 votes from 
the State of New York would have been cast as one vote, as they 
were cast by Mr. Murphy in the Democratic convention at Balti¬ 
more, and Roosevelt would have lost 14 votes in that State and 18 
in Massachusetts, and a much larger number in the convention as 


17 


a whole; the unit rule would be obligatory and this would be the 
end of congressional district representation in Republican national 
conventions. If one State can fix the basis of membership in a na¬ 
tional convention, each State can do the same and hopeless chaos 
would result. 

The Republican Party is a voluntary organization, and it is ele¬ 
mentary law that every voluntary organization, whether religious, 
social, scientific, or political, has the right to fix the basis of mem¬ 
bership in its own conventions and is the final judge of membership 
therein. A State may well prescribe that primaries and caucuses 
shall be held in a decent and orderly way; that the vote be correctly 
counted and returned, and may furnish to political parties the ma¬ 
chinery for accurately reporting these results. But a State can not 
go beyond that and attempt to vary the basis of representation in 
party conventions. It can not, for instance, prescribe that delegates 
to a given convention shall be elected by the legislature or appointed 
by the governor, or determine that the representation shall be by 
county. State, or senatorial district. The apportionment must be 
made, as has alw^ays been done, by the national convention of the 
party and by its agent, the national committee. 

There is no question that Tryon and Meyerfeld, the Taft dele¬ 
gates seated from the fourth congressional district of California, 
were the delegates who represented that district on the Taft ticket, 
nor is there any question that Wheeler and Bancroft, who were not 
seated, represented the same district on the Roosevelt ticket. The 
California primary law permits two names from each congres¬ 
sional district to he placed on each State-delegate ticket, and 
these four men were the Taft and Roosevelt candidates from the 
fourth district. There is nothing in the California primary law re¬ 
quiring any candidate for President to sign or file any petition, affi¬ 
davit, declaration, statement, or paper of any kind to get his name 
upon the ballot, and nothing of the kind was done by Taft in this 
case, except to telegraph his endorsement of the twenty-six delegates 
representing him. 

The Taft delegates in the fourth district exercised the option 
given them under the primary law and did not sign the delegates’ 
statement binding them to support, the candidate receiving the high¬ 
est number of votes cast throughout the State. This issue being pre¬ 
sented to the national committee, it was compelled either to seat the 
Taft delegates, who had received a majority of the votes in their 
district, or to abandon the call which it had issued for the .conven- 

2—I) 


18 


tion, and also the sound and salutary practice of the party for up¬ 
ward of 30 years. 

It is absolutely irrelevant to the question at issue how much 
majority the Roosevelt ticket had in the State at large. The fourth 
district expressed its preference for Taft and the two Taft delegates 
were clearly entitled to be seated. 

INDIANA. 

Contests were filed with the national committee against the Taft 
delegates from Indiana at large and from the first, third, fourth, 
and thirteenth districts. The Taft delegates at large were placed on 
the temporary roll by the unanimous vote of the national commit¬ 
tee. The contest from the fourth district was abandoned, while 
those from the first and third districts were decided for the Taft 
delegates by a unanimous vote and were not appealed to the commit¬ 
tee on credentials. 

r ’ INDIANA AT LARGE. 

The Roosevelt contestants from the State of Indiana at large 
based their claim to be seated in the national convention almost 
wholly on the charge that the primaries held in the city of Indian¬ 
apolis were fraudulent. Indianapolis is in ^Marion County, which 
constitutes the seventh congressional district. A^arious charges were 
made as to the primaries held in the different wards of the city, of 
unfairness in the appointment of election boards; also in the denial 
of watchers, in the location of voting places, and in delay in publi¬ 
cation of notice of location of voting places : intimidation of city 
employees and voters generally, fraudulent voting in many wards; 
that repeaters by the truck load had been hauled from voting place 
to voting place and voted fraudulently and illegally for the Taft 
delegates, and failure to keep the proper register of voters. The 
vote in the primary elections held in the city of Indianapolis, on 
March 22, 1912, to elect 134 delegates to the State convention of 
March 26, as set forth and published by the Indianapolis Star, an 
independent Republican paper, which has been neutral in the con-' 
test between Taft and Roosevelt, was as follows by Avards and town¬ 
ships : 


19 



Taft. 

Roosevelt. 

Taft major¬ 
ities. 

First . 

287 

129 

158 

Second . 

561 

87 

474 

Third. 

326 

65 

261 

Fourth. 

579 

113 

466 

Fifth. 

444 

45 

399 

Sixth. 

484 

97 

387 

Seventh . 

423 

141 

282 

Eighth. 

472 

95 

377 

Ninth. 

191 

163 

38 

Tenth..... 

361 

59 

202 

Eleventh . 

4‘ 2 

117 

285 

Twelfth. 

283 

14 

269 

Thirteenth. 

452 

(No ticket.) 

456 

Fourteenth. 

232 

45 

187 

Fifteenth. 

200 

26 

174 

Center Township (outside). 

5 

(No ticket.) 

5 

Lawrence Township. 

32 

32 

0 

Perry Township. 

24 

38 

112 

Pike Township. 

38 

27 

11 

Warren Township. 

87 

55 

32 

Washington Township. 

68 

.68 

0 

Wayne Township. 

212 

84 

128 


1 Roosevelt. 


As shown by the Indianapolis Star, the total vote in the primaries 
of March 22 resulted as follows: 


For Taft delegates. 6,163 

For Roosevelt delegates. l,4bu 


In Marion County, which includes the city of Indianapolis, it 
has been the uniform and invariable practice for 20 years, with 
both political parties, that prior to any and every State, district, 
county, and city convention, the county or city chairman, as the 
case may be, announces a credentials committee of prominent and 
disinterested lawyers who meet immediately on the close of the 
voting to hear and determine all contests for credentials, the cus¬ 
tom being that the chairman of this committee shall issue creden¬ 
tials in the event of contests. The purpose of this committee is to 
make a patient and painstaking investigation in each case of con¬ 
test and give to the contesting delegates a fair hearing and more 
thorough investigation than any convention committee is able to 
give in the time at its disposal, and report to' the convention com¬ 
mittee the benefit of its investigation. 

Such a committee was appointed in this case, consisting of Re¬ 
publican lawyers of character and standing, who met on the night 
of March 22 immediately after the primaries for the purpose of 




































20 


hearing all contests that might be presented. Roosevelt contests 
were presented from all the wards of Indianapolis except the 
eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth; and these contests were given 
careful hearing. Testimony on behalf of the Roosevelt contestants 
was presented in all the wards in contest; charges were made that 
repeaters had voted in several wards, but in no ward did the Roose¬ 
velt men then claim that sufficient illegal votes had been cast' to 
change the result. 

When the State convention met a committee of credentials was 
appointed, and eight members of this committee reported in favor 
of recognizing the Taft delegates from Marion County whose seats 
were contested, and five members of the committee presented a 
minority report in favor of the Roosevelt contestants. The minor¬ 
ity report of the committee was laid upon the table, and the ma¬ 
jority report was adopted by a majority of 105 votes. Complaint 
was made that the sitting delegates from Marion County were per¬ 
mitted to vote on the title to their own seats, but no appeal was 
taken from the ruling of the Chair that they were entitled to vote. 
As a matter of fact, under the call for the State convention, dele¬ 
gates were elected direct to the State convention from each ward 
in the city of Indianapolis and from each township in Marion 
County, and the sitting delegates from each ward and township 
were clearly entitled to vote on the contests from every other ward 
and township in Marion County. 

The Roosevelt contestants who claimed the right to represent the 
State at large in the Republican national convention were not voted 
for in the State convention, and their names were not even pre¬ 
sented there. They were named at a rump meeting held in the 
corner of the same hall where the State convention met and after 
it had adjourned, which rump meeting was attended by not more 
than 100 of the regularly elected delegates to the State convention. 

After the hearing of this case before the national committee, a 
roll call was had, and the vote was unanimous to sustain the right 
of the Taft delegates to their seats. Senator Borah and Mr. Frank 
B. Kellogg, the recognized Roosevelt leaders on the national com¬ 
mittee, both stated in casting their votes that the Indianapolis pri¬ 
maries, after all illegal votes were excluded, showed an unques¬ 
tioned majority in favor of Taft, and for that reason they voted 
in favor of the Taft delegates to the national convention. 


21 


THIRTEENTH INDIANA DISTRICT. 

The contest from the thirteenth district was decided for Taft 
by the national committee by a vote of 36 to 14. The first test of 
strength in the district convention came in the election of a per¬ 
manent chairman, when Mr. A. G. Graham, the Taft candidate, was 
elected by a vote of 7114 to 70%, the total vote of the convention 
being 142. Before the permanent chairman was elected the tem¬ 
porary chairman, who was chairman of the district committee, pro¬ 
posed a set of rules for the government of the convention, which 
rules were unanimously adopted. The solid vote of Laporte County, 
consisting of 24 votes, was cast for Graham for chairman. This 
vote was challenged by a delegate from another county on the 
ground that there were two or more delegates in the Laporte County 
delegation who had been instructed as Roosevelt delegates and in¬ 
tended to vote for the Roosevelt candidate for chairman. The 
chairman of the Laporte County delegation did thereupon poll the 
vote of his county, appointing for that purpose two tellers, and was 
then and there assured by all the delegates from said county that 
the vote as announced (24 for Graham) was correct. No mem¬ 
ber of the delegation from Laporte County challenged that an¬ 
nouncement. Contestants claim that Fulton County, by agreement, 
cast 4% votes for Graham as chairman and 51/2 votes for Jones, the 
Roosevelt candidate, whereas there were 4 Taft delegates and 6 
Roosevelt delegates in that county. There is no claim, however, 
that the vote of Fulton County for chairman was challenged by 
anyone. 

The convention proceeded, with Mr. Graham in the chair, to 
name members of the different committees. When the represen¬ 
tatives from Fulton County on the various committees were an¬ 
nounced the announcement was challenged and a poll of the Ful¬ 
ton County delegation was demanded. The point in dispute in¬ 
volved the representative from that county on the credentials com¬ 
mittee. Chairman Graham, acting under the rule previously 
adopted by the convention, refused to pass upon the challenge from 
Fulton County, but stated that the contest, if any was to be made, 
must be first referred to the committee on credentials and there¬ 
after be submitted to the convention as a whole. When the chair¬ 
man refused, in accordance with the rule therefore adopted, to poll 
Fulton County, the Roosevelt delegates in the convention there¬ 
upon and thereafter at all stages of the proceedings, created great 


22 


disturbance and disorder, and by continued shouting and yelling 
made it impossible for the convention to proceed in an orderly man¬ 
ner. The committee on credentials made a written report in which 
it overniled the entire six contests filed against the Koosevelt dele¬ 
gates and dismissed the two Roosevelt contests against Taft dele¬ 
gates because they were unsupported by any evidence whatever. 
The confusion and uproar above referred to into which the con¬ 
vention was thrown lasted for a period of more than three hours. 
In the meantime the chairman, with the use of a megaphone, re¬ 
ceived the nominations of Mr. Studebaker and Mr. Fox, the two 
Taft delegates, and for the space of 10 or 15 minutes, in a loud 
voice and through a megaphone, called upon the Roosevelt dele¬ 
gates to make nominations for the same office, but none were an¬ 
nounced. No further nominations being made the chairman called 
for the vote of the convention. The ayes were called and then the 
noes,~but there were no ‘hioes” upon the motion, the Roosevelt 
delegates failing or refusing to vote. The chairman thereupon an¬ 
nounced the election of the said Taft candidates as delegates to the 
national convention. 

At the hearing before the national committee counsel for the 
Roosevelt contestants offered affidavits which he claimed would 
show that a majority of delegates in the convention had not voted 
for the Taft delegates to the national convention. Objection was 
made that no such contention had been made in the statement of 
the case or the brief of the contestants; that the affidavits had not 
been filed with the national committee, and that there had been no 
opportunity to see them or to prepare counter affidavits. The 
national committee allowed the affidavits to be read but did not 
deem it necessary to grant time for the procuring and filing of 
counter affidavits. The affidavits were indefinite and loosely drawn, 
and it w^as impossible to tell from them whether the affiants in¬ 
tended their statements to apply to the regular convention or the 
rump convention, to be described later. 

Among the 70 affidavits of delegates to the district convention 
offered by the Roosevelt contestants were four made by persons who 
averred that they had been elected as delegates and attended the 
convention with the intention of voting for the Roosevelt candi¬ 
dates for delegates to Chicago, who made oath that because of the 
noise and confusion they did not vote at all upon any question after 
the election of chairman, and that they left the hall before the 
rump convention. 


It appeared that the result of the vote was not questioned at the 
district convention, and the result was certified to the national com¬ 
mittee by the chairman of the district convention, whose election 
was admitted to have been valid. To call into question duly de¬ 
clared and certified results of a convention when no question was 
raised until after it had adjourned would be on a par with ques¬ 
tioning an act of the legislature by affidavits of members declaring 
they had not voted or had not intended to vote on its passage. The 
convention was held April 2, 1912, and no question was raised as 
to the vote until the hearing before the national committee, the 
aflidavits upon which the question was based having been secured 
between May 20 and the day before the national committee took 
up the case. 

After the regular convention had been in session three and one- 
half hours and had transacted its business and adjourned, a nnnp 
convention was held in the same hall by a few Roosevelt followers, 
not more than 30 in number, which was less than a quorum of the 
delegates of the regular convention. At this rump convention there 
was no roll call of the delegates; the persons present did not sit 
down; no secretary was elected; some rules were adopted after a self- 
appointed chairman had by viva voce vote declared the election of 
two delegates and two alternates to the national convention. 

There is no question at all that Mr. Graham was duly elected 
chairman of the regular convention and occupied the chair until 
after adjournment had been duly declared; nor is there any dispute 
about the rules which were unanimously adopted before the conven¬ 
tion elected its permanent chairman. The chairman acted strictly 
in accordance with his rights under those rules, and tlie convention, 
after a turbulent session of three and a half hours, duly elected the 
Taft delegates. The proceedings of the rump convention lasted less 
than five minutes, and that meeting was not attended by all the 
Roosevelt delegates. Its action was entirely illegal and unwarranted. 

KENTUCKY. 

In Kentucky contests were filed against the Taft delegation from 
the State at large and from the first, second, fourth, seventh, eighth, 
and tenth congressional districts, while Taft contests were filed 
against the Roosevelt delegates from the eleventh congressional dis¬ 
trict. The contest from the State at large was decided by the 
national committee in favor of the Taft delegates by a vote of 38 


24 


to 11, from the seventh congressional district by a vote of 38 to 
13, from tlie eighth congressional district by 35 to 17, and in the 
eleventh congressional district a motion to split the delegation and 
give 1 vote to Taft and 1 to Roosevelt carried. A demand for a roll 
call was denied by a vote of 33 to 19. The other contests in Ken¬ 
tucky were decided against the Roosevelt claimants without opposi¬ 
tion. The only contests appealed to the committee on credentials 
were those from tlie seventh, eighth, and eleventh congressional dis¬ 
tricts. In the eleventh congressional district both the Taft and 
Roosevelt attorneys appealed from the compromise made by the na¬ 
tional committee. 

KENTUCKY AT LAKGE. 

A contest was filed against only three of the Taft delegates at 
large from the State of Kentucky. The title of the fourth Taft 
delegate, J. E. Wood, was not contested. The Roosevelt claimants 
admit that the State and county conventions were duly called in ac¬ 
cordance with the direction of the Republican national committee 
and that the State convention was held at the time and place indi¬ 
cated in the call. They do not claim that their names were pre¬ 
sented to the State convention as delegates to the Republican na¬ 
tional convention, and they admit they did not receive any votes 
in the State convention as such delegates. No other State conven¬ 
tion was held. This fact is also admitted. The contention of the 
Roosevelt claimants is that they would have been elected if the 
Roosevelt forces had been in control of the State convention. The 
Roosevelt claim is that by the fraudulent and unlawful acts of the 
Taft men in the State, and especially of the Federal office holders, 
the will of the majority of the Republican voters of the State was 
overruled, set aside, and rejected, and in lieu thereof the choice of 
the minority was substituted and certified to the State convention. 
The State convention assembled at Louisville on the 10th day of 
April, 1912, and remained in session until the evening of the 11th. 
A committee on credentials, composed of one member from each 
congressional district, was named by the different district caucuses 
without any contest whatsoever. Two additional members of the 
committee were named by the chairman of the convention, in accord¬ 
ance with the rules of the Republican party in the State, and no 
objection was made to this action. Contests were presented from 19 
counties, involving 449 votes, and ample opportunity was given for 
the presentation of all these contests to the committee on credentials. 


25 


It was the Roosevelt contention that the county conventions in 
seven counties having a vote of 120 in the State convention were 
conducted by such fraudulent methods as to prevent any expression 
of the views and choice of the Republicans present and desiring to 
participate therein, and by reason thereof said voters were not given 
an opportunity to indicate their choice or to select delegates. In 
none of these counties, however, was any contest presented before the 
committee on credentials of the State convention. The committee 
on credentials was composed of eleven Taft men and three Roosevelt 
men. This committee reported that 449 delegates were in contest, out 
of a total number of 2,356 delegates to which the convention was en¬ 
titled. The committee recommended the seating of 336V 2 Taft dele¬ 
gates and 112% Roosevelt delegates, and this report was adopted by 
the convention by a vote of 1,872 to 434. A minority report was 
made by persons entitled to 2% votes on the committee on creden¬ 
tials. This minority report did not recommend the seating of any 
delegates from any county, but requested the setting aside of the 
official call of the Republican State central committee, dated Feb¬ 
ruary 14, 1912, convening the said State convention, and that in 
lieu of the State convention a State-wide presidential primary be 
held. The minority report of the committee on credentials was put 
to a vote of the convention and received less than 500 votes. The 
Roosevelt delegates for the most part remained in the State conven¬ 
tion and participated in all its proceedings. The convention ad¬ 
journed without protest or bolt of any kind or description. No no¬ 
tice of any contest was given until the Roosevelt claimants filed one 
with the national committee, which notice was received on May 29. 

If the seats in the State convention as to which any notice of con¬ 
test was given, 4-^9 in number, had all been given to Roosevelt, it 
would have made the entire Roosevelt vote in the State convention 
^97 votes less than a majority. The election of the three Taft dele¬ 
gates at large. Senator W. 0. Bradley, Judge James Breathitt, and 
W. D. Cochran, whose seats were contested, was made unanimous by 
the State convention. The remaining delegate, J. E. Wood, was 
elected by a tremendous preponderance of the vote and his seat was 
not contested. 

The three Roosevelt claimants from the State of Kentucky make 
no'claim that they were named as delegates to represent the State in 
the national convention by any person or persons whomsoever. In 
no case presented before the national committee were louder and 
more insistent cries made that the Taft delegates had been elected by 


26 


fraud and illegal practices. There was an absolute failure of proof 
to sustain these charges The national committee found the charges 
unfounded, and the case was not appealed to the committee on cre¬ 
dentials or to the convention itself. 

SEVENTH KENTUCKY DISTRICT. 

The district convention in the seventh congressional district was 
regularly called, and all its proceedings were strictly.in accord with 
law and party custom. The total vote of the convention was 145. 
There were contests from four counties, involving 95 voles. Accord¬ 
ing to the rules of the party in Kentucky, where two sets of creden¬ 
tials are presented those delegates whose credentials are approved by 
the county chairman are entitled to participate in the ten]porary 
organization. 

The convention proceeded on the rolls thus made up, and elected 
Charles M. Wiard, the Taft candidate, temporary chairman, by 98 
votes to 47 votes cast for the Eoosevelt candidate. The committee 
on credentials was appointed, consisting of one member named by 
each county delegation. This committee was in session several 
hours and gave every person interested ample opportunity to be 
heard. The report of the committee was signed by every member 
of the committee except Henry T. Duncan^ the Roosevelt candidate 
for delegate to the national convention, and recommended the seat-, 
ing of the Taft contesting delegation from Fayette County and the 
seating of the regular delegations in all other counties except in 
Woodford County, where it was recommended that the Taft dele¬ 
gates be unseated. Mr. Duncan signed the report as to Woodford 
County but presented a minority report as to all other counties in 
the dispute. The majority report of the committee was adopted 
unanimously, no delegation whose seats were contested being per¬ 
mitted to vote on its own case. As soon as the majority report of the 
credentials committee had been adopted, the Roosevelt adherents 
left the courthouse where the convention was sitting and held an¬ 
other convention. The counties conceded for Taft had 50 votes. 
The Fayette County delegation, with 47 contested votes, was abso¬ 
lutely essential to the success of the Roosevelt side, while the Taft 
delegates could have been elected without it. 

FAYETTE COUNTY. 

In Kentucky county conventions, except in two or three counties 
having the largest cities, are mass conventions held at the county 


27 


courthouse. The city of Lexington is the county seat of Fayette 
County. In the county convention held in this county the testi¬ 
mony of disinterested witnesses shows that the Taft forces were in 
a majority by from 100 to 500 votes. The chairman of the county 
committee called the convention to order and asked for a vote on 
the question of the election of a temporaiy chairman. Before the 
vote was announced the Taft men asked for tellers to count the vote. 
The chairman refused to permit a count of the vote and arbitrarily 
declared the Roosevelt candidate elected temporary chairman. It 
was the first time such a count had ever been refused in Fayette 
County in a Republican convention since the Civil War. The ma¬ 
jority of the Republicans present thereupon proceeded to hold an¬ 
other convention in the same hall and elected delegates to the dis¬ 
trict convention and to the state convention. Every member of the 
committee on credentials of the district convention except Mr. Dun¬ 
can voted to seat the Taft delegates from Fayette County, and every 
delegate in the district convention except the delegates from Fayette 
County, who were not permitted to vote upon their own contest, 
voted to sustain the report of the credentials committee. The same 
action was taken by the committee on credentials of the State con¬ 
vention. The Roosevelt Republicans claimed that they were in a 
majority in the Fayette County convention. If that were true, the 
chairman of the county committee who called the convention to 
order would not have refused to permit a count of the vote as was 
rightfully demanded. 

SCOTT COUNTY. 

The delegation from Scott County, with 18 votes, was in contest. 
This county convention was duly called to order, nominations were 
made for temporary chairman, and tellers were appointed to count 
the vote. Before the vote could be counted the Roosevelt men left 
the hall. Testimony Avas furnished from several public officers of 
high standing, all disinterested, showing that the Taft men Avere 
largely in a majority in the convention. The county convention pro¬ 
ceeded with its business and elected delegates to both district and 
State conventions. In both of these last-named conventions the 
committee on credentials recommended the seating of the Taft dele¬ 
gates and both conventions adopted the report of its committee on 
credentials. 


28 


FRANKLIN COUNTY. 

The Franklin County convention elected 16 Taft delegates to the 
district convention. Immediately after the convention organized 
by the election of a temporary chairman, and before any other busi¬ 
ness could be transacted the Roosevelt followers bolted and 'went into 
the courthouse yard, where they held a coiivention. There was 
ample disinterested testimony that the Taft men in this county con¬ 
vention outnumbered the Roosevelt men by over two to one. The 
committee on credentials of the district convention decided the con¬ 
test in this county in favor of the Taft Republicans. The report was 
adopted by the convention. The State convention decided this con¬ 
test the same way. 

WOODFORD COUNTY. 

Woodford County was entitled to 14 votes in the convention. In 
the county convention held in this county the chairman of the county 
committee, a Taft man, refused to grant a count of the votes cast 
for temporary chairman, and the committee on credentials of the 
district convention, following the rule laid down in the Payette 
County case, unseated the Taft delegates from Woodford County and 
seated the Roosevelt delegates. 

The district convention, after the Roosevelt bolt, proceeded in a 
regular and orderly way and elected the two delegates to the national 
convention, who were placed upon the temporary and permanent 
rolls of the convention. 

EFFECT OF CHANGE OF DISTRICT LINES BY LAW PASSED AFTER CON¬ 
VENTION CALLED. 

Another point which was raised, in the contests from the seventh, 
eighth, tenth, and eleventh Kentucky districts, was the fact that 
after the Republican congressional conventions had all been called 
in that State the legislature, which was then in session, redistricted 
the State for congressional purposes and changed the boundaries of 
these districts. All of these district conventions were duly held in 
accordance with the call of the district committees and in accord¬ 
ance with the regulations laid down by the national committee 
without reference to the changes made in the boundaries of the dis¬ 
tricts by the State legislature. 

Every county sent its duly accredited delegates to the district con¬ 
ventions, composed of delegates from the counties constituting each 


29 


district as it existed at the time the district committee made its call. 
No county sent a duly accredited delegation to the congressional 
convention of the district to which that county had been transferred 
by the redistricting act of the legislature. This action was taken by 
direction of the Republican State committee and was generally ac¬ 
quiesced in to prevent confusion. Had these district conventions 
been composed of delegates from the counties included in the new 
districts instead of the old districts, the result would have been the 
same and Taft delegates would have been elected to the national con¬ 
vention. All these district conventions were held under the terms 
of the call of their respective district committees, and their action 
can not be invalidated by the fact that subsequent to the issuing of 
the calls the legislature redistricted the congressional districts. This 
was the only point involved in the contest from the tenth congres¬ 
sional district of Kentucky, and that contest was not appealed to the 
committee on credentials of the national convention. 

EIGHTH KENTUCKY DISTRICT. 

In the eighth Kentucky district the Roosevelt forces bolted the 
regular convention and held a rump convention. This district as 
constituted when the call for the convention was issued was com¬ 
posed of ten counties, having 163 votes, of which 82 were necessary 
to a choice. There was absolutely no contest in five of the counties. 
Shelby County sent a contesting Roosevelt delegation to the district 
convention, but they were elected at a rump county convention in 
which less than 20 Republicans participated, while there were more 
than 200 Taft men who participated in the regular convention. 
The Roosevelt men abandoned their claim to the vote of Shelby 
County. The Roosevelt men claim that Spencer County, with six 
votes, elected a Roosevelt delegation. As a matter of fact there was 
absolutely no contest presented from Spencer County against‘the 
seating of the regularly elected Taft delegates from that county. 
All of these six counties were represented in the district convention 
by delegates who were present and voted for the Taft delegates to 
the national convention, giving them 84 votes, or two more than were 
necessary for a choice. 

Contests were filed with the district convention from Boyle, Gar¬ 
rard, Madison, and Mercer Counties. In Boyle County it was agreed 
that the vote of the county in the district convention should be 
equally divided. The committee on credentials and the district con- 


30 


vention unanimously agreed to uphold this agreement. Two conven¬ 
tions were held in Madison County. The Koosevelt followers, headed 
by lion. B. J. Clay, bolted the regular convention The evidence 
is overwhelming that the Taft forces were largely in the majority. 
When the vote was being taken for a temporary chairman the Roose¬ 
velt followers, feeling that they were defeated, demanded that tellers 
be elected instead of appointed as was the general custom. The 
chairman offered to appoint tellers but refused to permit them to be 
elected, whereupon the Roosevelt minority bolted. A large number 
of Democrats and negroes under age took part in the Roosevelt con¬ 
vention, and there is ample evidence that a majority of the legal 
Republican voters present at the county convention were for Taft. 
The committee on credentials of the district convention reported in 
favor of seating the Taft delegates from Madison County, and the 
report was adopted. In the ^Mercer County convention both the 
Taft and Roosevelt men claim to have had a majority of the legal 
voters. The first count not being satisfactory to alL the convention 
unanimously agreed that the secretary, Mr. James P. Spillman, 
should make a count of both sides and that the convention would 
abide by his count. His count showed that the Taft men were in a 
majority. The Roosevelt men thereupon left the convention, with 
the exception of Mr. Riker, who helped to make the count and who 
knew that Taft had a majority. No contest was filed from this 
county by the Roosevelt men at the district convention. There 
were only two counties that did file contests in the district conven¬ 
tion. Conceding both of them to Roosevelt leaves over 100 uncon¬ 
tested votes in favor of Taft out of 163. The Boyle County delega¬ 
tion had by agreement been equally divided. The tellers in that 
county convention agreed that Taft had the majority, but the chair¬ 
man refused to recognize the count. 

Complaint is made that Judge L. W. Bethurum, of Rockcastle 
County, a county not in the new district, called the district conven¬ 
tion to order as chairman of the district committee. As has been 
shown above, however, all the district conventions in Kentucky were 
held in accordance with the apportionment of the State for congres¬ 
sional purposes before the legislature passed the redistricting bill. 
The Roosevelt contestants before the national convention admitted 
that the report of the credentials committee seating the Taft dele¬ 
gates from the various counties in the district was adopted in the dis¬ 
trict convention, and that by the convention thus organized the Taft 
delegates to Chicago were elected. The contestants further set forth 


31 


in their brief that in the same hall and immediately after the ad¬ 
journment of the regular convention which elected Taft delegates the 
Roosevelt contestants were elected. In this rump convention sat 
Roosevelt delegates from Mercer, Spencer, and Shelby Counties, 
although the delegation from Shelby County was expressly conceded 
to Taft, and no contests were ever filed against the right of the 
regularly elected Taft delegates from Spencer and Mercer Counties 
to their seats in the district convention. 

Assuming that the Roosevelt men were entitled to all the delegates 
from the counties in which they filed contests in the district conven¬ 
tion, there remained a clear majority of uncontested delegates who 
voted for the Taft delegates to Chicago. 

ELEVENTH KENTUCKY DISTRICT. 

The eleventh congressional district of Kentucky is composed of 
19 counties, entitled to 384 votes in the district convention. At 
the mass convention held at each county seat in the district on 
April 6, 1912, four counties with 114 votes were instructed for Taft, 
five counties with 100 votes instructed for Roosevelt, two counties 
with 47 votes instructed for Taft but were contested, four counties 
with 103 votes were instructed for Roosevelt but were contested, 
Avhile in Clay County, with 20 votes, the vote was divided half and 
half. All the delegates elected to the district convention were 
elected at the same time that delegates were elected to the State 
convention. Four of the counties in the district sent contesting 
delegations to the State convention, which body, after a full and 
careful hearing, seated the Taft delegates. The Taft delegates 
from these counties were entitled by the same evidence to seats 
in the congressional convention, and would have been so seated 
had the Republican party law and custom in Kentucky been fol¬ 
lowed. The Republican party in Kentucky is controlled by a set 
of iTilas and regulations, regularly adopted by the party, and fol¬ 
lowed without a break for many years, serving as the constitu¬ 
tion of the party in the State. By that law and custom, in all 
district conventions a committee of credentials is made up of one 
delegate from each county who is named by the county delegation 
attending the district convention. Had that law and custom been 
followed in this case, the majority of the members of that committee 
from uncontested counties would have been Taft men, and the law¬ 
fully elected Taft delegates in the contesting delegations would have 
been seated. 


32 


The convention was called to order by the cliairman of the con¬ 
gressional committee, who was a Roosevelt man. Instead of pro¬ 
ceeding in the accustomed manner to call for the appointment of a 
committee on credentials, he entertained a motion for the chair to 
appoint a committee of five, and in the midst of great confusion he 
declared the motion carried. The chair appointed four Roosevelt 
men, and one Taft man who declined to serve on an illegally con¬ 
stituted committee. This committee reported every contest in favor 
of the Roosevelt men. The Taft followers thereupon bolted the con¬ 
vention, taking with them 284 lawfully elected Taft delegates out of 
the total membership of 384, and proceeded to elect two Taft dele¬ 
gates to the Chicago convention. On account of the great mass of 
conflicting testimony presented to the national committee in this 
case, that committee by a vote of 33 to 19 decided to compromise the 
contest by seating one Taft delegate and one Roosevelt delegate, 
although both sides expressed their dissatisfaction with this result 
and appealed the case to the committee on credentials. The matter 
was presented to the committee on credentials, and the two delegates 
placed upon the temporary roll were by unanimous vote placed 
upon the permanent roll. 


LOUISIANA. 

Contests have been brought to the national convention involving 
the delegates at large and most of the district delegates from the 
State of Louisiana at every convention since 1876 except the conven¬ 
tion for 1884. During all of this time there have been two wings of 
the Republican party in the State. In the national convention of 
1908 both delegations from Louisiana were seated with a half vote 
each, under a resolution that committee to be composed of the 
chairman, secretary, and one member of the incoming national com¬ 
mittee, be empowered to formulate a plan for the thorough reor¬ 
ganization of the party throughout the State of Louisiana.’’ 

In February, 1912, this subcommittee of the national committee, 
consisting of Mr. Ralph Williams, of Oregon, representing the 
chairman, Mr. Wm. Hayward, the secretary, and Mr. E. C. Duncan, 
of North Carolina, went to Louisiana and made a thorough inves¬ 
tigation, interviewing all the party leaders who could possibly be 
reached, regardless of faction or color. Before proceeding with its 
deliberations, the following agreement was signed by 10 men, 5 from 
eacax bide, who were duly authorized to represent both factions: 


33 


Xkw Orleans, La,, Fehruary 21, 1912^. 

Tbe uiidersijJiiied agree to submit to Messrs. Diuiean, Williams, and Hayward,, 
of tbe national committee, all questions of contest between tbe two factions, 
and also to decide wbat questions of contest should be properly decided, and 
we pledge ourseh’es to be boimd by tbe award rendered by tbem. 


The subcommittee of the national committee, after hearing ali 
the evidence, found that the action of the State committee taken a 
few days previous was illegal, in that it refused to seat 11 duly- 
elected members of the State committee, and that the election of 
officers of the committee and the call for a State convention, in the 
absence of these legally elected members, were illegal and must 
be annulled, and ordered the State committee to meet not later 
than March 8. Mr. Frank B. Williams was originally elected chair¬ 
man of the State central committee. J\Ir. Emil Kuntz was leader 
of the faction refused recognition by Mr. Williams in his committee. 
Mr. IVilliams refused to abide by the decision of the subcommittee- 
of the national committee because of his pronounced lily-white 
views and because nearly all the Republicans ordered by the sub¬ 
committee to be recognized as members of the State central commit¬ 
tee were colored men. The decision of the subcommittee was also 
repudiated by Mr. Pearl AVight, member of the national committee, 
and tAvo others, all members of the AVilliams faction, who claimed 
that they signed the above agreement under duress. 

The new State committee met March 8 in accordance Avith the 
direction of the subcommittee, elected Victor Loisel chairman, and 
called a State convention to meet in Alexandria April 6. This State 
convention AA’as duly held in accordance with the call, and AA^as a 
large and representative gathering of Republicans, with delegates 
present from every parish in the State except three, and elected a 
delegation to the national convention Avhich Avas instructed for Taft 
and Avas headed by C. S. Hebert. 

The WilliamsAVight faction proceeded to hold the convention 
originally called, the call for AAdiich had been ordered to be annulled 
by the subcommittee. This convention split into two bodie.^, both 
of Avhich named delegates to the national convention. In both of 
these bodies, the majority of the delegates pre.^ent appear on the 
registration lists as Democrats in politics. 

The national committee by a vote of 50 to 2 refused to sustain 
the contest against the Hebert-Taft delegation. The Taft delegates 
from all of the districts AA’ere also retained in their seats, in the third, 
fourth, and fifth congreSvdonal districts by viva voce vote, AARich 
.3—D 


34 


in at least one district, the third, was unanimous. Tlie contests 
in the first, second, sixth, and seventh districts were abandoned. 
None of these contests were appealed to the committee on creden¬ 
tials except those from the fourth and fifth districts, and the Taft 
delegates from these districts were retained in their seats for the 
same reasons that caused the defeat of the contest against the Taft 
delegates from the State at large. 

MICHIGAN. 

The contest from Michigan involved the question of who were the 
rightfully elected delegates at large (six in number) from that 
State. The number of delegates entitled to seats in the State con¬ 
vention was 1,312. 

The State convention was called to meet at Bay City April 11, 
1912. On April 6 the secretary of the Kepubhcan State central com¬ 
mittee called a meeting of that committee to be held at Bay City the 
evening before the State convention was to meet. When the secre¬ 
tary called this meeting of the State committee the chairman of the 
committee was out of the State and his whereabouts was unknown. 
On the same date he telegraphed to the secretary from Chicago, Ill., 
stating he did not think it was advisable to call a meeting of the 
State committee at the time designated by the secretary in his call. 
Subsequent to the issuing of the said notice by the secretary a 
majority of the members of the committee, 15 out of a total member¬ 
ship of 24, joined in a call for said meeting. In the absence of the 
chairman of the committee the secretary had the right to call the 
committee together, and his action was ratified by the committee 
itself. A quorum of the State committee, 17 members out of 24, 
attended the meeting called for April 10. An acting chairman was 
elected, a temporary roll of the convention was prepared, and the 
secretary was instructed to distribute tickets of admission to the 
convention. 

Only two counties sent contesting delegations to the State conven¬ 
tion—one from Wayne County, in which Detroit is located, involv¬ 
ing 192 delegates, and one from Calhoun County, with 27 delegates. 
There was precedent in Michigan for the State committee to make 
up the temporary roll of the State convention, and due notice was 
given the manager of the Michigan Roosevelt campaign committee 
that the State committee would hear any contests which might be 
presented, but no contest was presented to the State committee. At 
this meeting of the State committee the secretary was authorized to 


35 


distribute the tickets to the chairmen of the different delegations who 
were authorized by the committee to be seated in the temporary 
organization. 

At the meeting of the committee held January 17, 1912, Hon. 
riuman H. Newberry, of Detroit, had been designated temporary 
chairman of the convention. That action was rescinded at the meet¬ 
ing of April 10, because Mr. Newberry had become a manager and 
acti\e agent for one of the candidates for the Presidenc}?^ and because 
he had stated he would permit no roll calls in the convention; that he 
would take all votes viva voce; that he would decide all questions by 
what he determined to be a preponderance of sound; and that he 
would be influenced by his personal leanings in making his decision. 
Mr. Newberry acquiesced in this action of the State committee and 
made no attempt to act as temporary chairman of the State con¬ 
vention. 

Early on the morning of April 11, the day the State convention 
was to meet, the temporary secretary of the convention and the tem¬ 
porary sergeant at arms endeavored to enter the local armory where 
the convention was to meet, but found it in possession of the local 
militia and a detachment of local police and were refused admission. 
Later in the morning the State central committee made formal de¬ 
mand for possession of the armory and were admitted. The chairman 
of the State committee, Mr. Frank Knox, was found within the 
armory seated upon the platform. The committee assembled upon 
the platform and called upon Chairman Knox to preside. He re¬ 
fused to comply with this request, whereupon the committee pro¬ 
ceeded again to elect an acting chairman, a majority of the members 
of the committee being present and voting ‘^aye.” The committee 
instructed the sergeant at arms to admit no person to the hall except 
those who presented tickets bearing the signature of the secretary. 

The tickets for the State convention were issued on the morning of 
the day that body met and in ample time for use. Distribution was 
made at the leading hotel in the city. The distribution commenced 
at the hour of 9.30 a. m. and continued during the entire time the 
convention was in session. The distribution was strictly in accord¬ 
ance with the instructions of the State central committee. Tickets 
were distributed in a public place and there was common knowledge 
that it was being done. Thence was no discrimination in the distribu¬ 
tion of the tickets, and there was absolutely no excuse for any dele¬ 
gate failing to secure his ticket. The four roll calls taken during 
the State convention showed that practically all the delegates had 



36 


secured tickets and were ])resent. AVhen the convention hall was 
ready for use the doors were opened and were kept open at all times 
except for a short period when a crowd attempted to rush into the 
hall in a body. At that time the doors Avere shut until more adequate 
police protection could be obtained, Avhen they were again opened 
and kept open. During the brief time the doors were closed as many 
Taft delegates Avere excluded from the hall as Roosevelt delegates. 

The State convention Avas called to order by the chairman of the 
Republican State central committee, Mr. Frank Knox. The secre¬ 
tary of the committee addressed the chairman, advising him and the 
convention that the State central committee had chosen Hon. Grant 
FelloAvs as temporary chairman. He thereupon took the chair and 
called the convention to order, and the call for the convention Avas 
read by the secretary. Mr. Knox Avas attempting to act as chairman 
at the same time, and he declared Herbert F. Baker elected tempo¬ 
rary chairman of the convention. Chairman Fellows recognized a 
motion to make Herbert F. Baker temporaiy chairman, and put the 
question to the convention and ordered a roll call thereon. The vote 
stood: Ayes 67, noes 818. In the meantime, the State chairman, 
Frank Knox, and about 50 others proceeded to make all the noise 
possible, occupying one end of the platform and the space immedi¬ 
ately in front thereof. These disturbers soon got tired and left the 
hall, accompanied by a feAv of the delegates, hut not to exceed 200 
delegates bolted the convention. At all times until the adjournment 
of the convention nearly 1.000 delegates were present and partici¬ 
pated in the proceedings. Four separate roll calls Avere had—one 
upon the question of nominating Mr. Baker temporary chairman; 
secondly, upon the adoption of the report of the committee on 
credentials when the vote Avas: Ayes 946, noes 18, not voting 6; 
again upon the adoption of the report of the committee on perma¬ 
nent organization and order of business on Avhich the vote stood; 
Ayes 926, nays 7, reported not voting 27. The roll was also called 
upon the election of delegates at large to the national convention, 
on Avhich roll 975 votes Avere cast, of AARich there AA^ere: Ayes 900, 
nays 21, not voting 52. The Roosevelt contestants admit that the 
convention commenced business AAdth about 800 delegates, not in¬ 
cluding the Taft delegates from Wayne and Calhoun Counties. 
The record shoAA^s that on every one of the four roll calls except 
the first from 960 to 975 votes Avere cast. Subtracting from this 
total vote the vote of the two counties in contest, the convention 
would still have been in the control of the Taft delegates. Ample 


37 


opportunity was given the Roosevelt contestants from Wayne and 
Calhoun Counties to present their claims to the committee on creden¬ 
tials. Any statement to the contrary is without foundation. They 
refused to avail themselves of the opportunity. 

CALHOUN AND WAYNE COUNTIES. 

There was testimony showing that the Roosevelt followers in the 
county convention held in Calhoun County were in the minority, 
but that by their noisy, boisterous, and disorderly tactics they re¬ 
fused to allow the convention to proceed in an orderly manner. 
When it became apparent that the Roosevelt delegates would not 
come to order in the convention, the convention proceeded regularly 
to the transaction of its business, and when that had been ac¬ 
complished adjourned. The county convention for Wayne County 
met in Detroit April 5. Very shortly after it was called to order 
about 25 or 30 men, some of whom were not even delegates to the 
convention, gathered on one side of the hall where the convention 
was being held, and led by Charles A. Nichols, the Roosevelt 
manager in Michigan and Wayne County, who was not a delegate to 
the Republican convention, proceeded to create a disturbance by 
shouting and gesticulating, which disturbance continued for a few 
minutes, when the disturbers, led by Nichols, left the convention 
hall. This statement is testified to by over twenty of the leading 
citizens of Detroit, county and city officials, professional men, 
bankers, lawyers, and business men, who swear that Nichols and his 
following did not exceed 45 men; that after they left the hall the 
convention proceeded to its business-in regular form and was in ses¬ 
sion for about two hours; that there was no contest brought before 
the committee on credentials by any voting precinct in Wayne 
County; that every delegate who sat in the convention presented due 
and lawful credentials, and no one was allowed to sit in said con¬ 
vention except those who were duly and properly elected under the 
call of the county committee. 

The entire record in this case shows an utter absence of foundation 
for the contest which was brought against the Taft delegates. The 
national committee decided the case without division. 


MISSISSIPPI. 


Contests were filed against the Taft delegates from Mississippi 
at large, and in all of the eight congressional districts of the State 
except the third. The contests from the first and eight districts 
were abandoned before the national committee and never presented 
there. All the other contests in the State were decided against the 
Hoosevelt contestants, without division being called for in the 
national committee. The contests were of the mo.st frivolous char¬ 
acter, in every case a mere handful of men assembling together 
and pretending to hold a convention for the sole purpose of get¬ 
ting up a contest. In the second district, for example, one Jonas 
Avant, who tried to address the regular convention but was refused 
permission because he was not a delegate and not a qualified elector, 
with five other men, none of whom were delegates, and two of whom 
were Democrats, went to the back part of a store building in the 
town where the district convention was being held and pretended 
to hold a convention. They were citizens of only two counties out 
of the nine constituting the congre.ssional district. 

SIXTH MISSISSIPPI UTSTRICT. 

The regular convention in the sixth district was an orderly and 
harmonious body, which proceeded in a businesslike way to do what 
it had to do and attracted considerable attention in the town of six 
or seven hundred people where it met. There was no other conven¬ 
tion held in that town that day. The two Roosevelt contestants from 
this di.^trict were J. M. Leverett and Charles H. Hays. Several wit¬ 
nesses of the highest standing, residents of the town where the 
convention was held, te.«tified to seeing these two men in town the 
forenoon of the day of the convention, but that both of them left on 
a 12.40 train, the train which brought into town most of the dele¬ 
gates to the convention, and that neither of them was seen about the 
town after that hour. This is a fair sample of the contests brought 
against the Taft delegates from ]\Iississippi. The contests from, the 
State at large and from the second, fifth, and sixth districts luere 
appealed to the committee on credentials and presented in a perfunc¬ 
tory tvaij by the counsel for contestants, hut they were all so utterly 
without merit that theif were decided by the credentials committee 
against the Roosevelt contestants without division. 


39 


MISSOURI. 

In Missouri contests were filed against the Roosevelt delegates 
from the State at large and from the fifth district, and contests were 
also filed against the Taft delegates from the first, third, seventh, 
and fourteenth congressional districts. The only case passed upon 
by the national committee was that concerning the delegates at large,, 
which was decided unanimously in favor of the Roosevelt delegates.. 
The other contests from the State were settled by an agreement giv¬ 
ing Roosevelt the delegates from the first and fifth districts and 
giving Taft the delegates from the third, seventh, and fourteenth- 
congressional districts. None of these cases were presented to the 
committee on credentials, both the Taft and Roosevelt leaders in 
Missouri being content to abide by the S'^ttlement made before the 
national committee. 


FIFTH ^[ISSOURT DISTRICT. 

To show that the compromise was a real one and that actual 
ground of contest existed against the Roosevelt delegates a statement 
of the case in the fifth congressional district is given. 

The district committee, which was composed largely or wholly of' 
Roosevelt men, ordered a primary for the 7th day of March, 1912. 
ITnder the Missouri laws it is a misdemeanor for any one but an en¬ 
rolled voter to vote in a primary. The last previous enrollment 
was in October, 1910, 18 months before the primary. In places like 
Kansas City the voting population rapidly changes on account of 
changes in residence and a supplemental enrollment preliminary to 
the Kansus City election was to begin March 12. It resulted on 
that day in the addition of 24,469 names to the voting list. As the 
district is usually Republican, probably fully 12,000 Republicans 
were disfranchised by the call of the committee. A storm of protest 
immediately followed the issuance of the call, and Republicans ever^^- 
where were urged to ignore it. In addition to this disfranchisement 
the committee provided that no one’s name should go on the ballot 
which it was itself to prepare, as a candidate for membership in the 
convention, except upon the payment of $2 for each candidate, and 
the membership of the convention was fixed at 415. The result was 
that a tax was attempted to be levied of $830 each, on the Taft, 
La Follette and Cummins adherents in case they placed their names 
upon the ballot. A still further payment of $6 for each polling place 
was demanded, which carried the prepaj^ment demanded of each 



40 


presidential candidate up to $986; and the evidence indicated that 
the total expense to the committee for the primaries was only $148.To. 

The resnlt was that no candidates for delegates were presented 
by the Taft, La Follette, or Cummins people, and only the ^‘Roosevelt 
Republican Association delegation” went on the ballot. A prefer¬ 
ential expression was provided for on the ballot, which without the 
sligiitest authority contained the names of Mr. Taft, ^Ir. La Follette, 
and Mr. Cummins. Only Roosevelt men participated in the pri¬ 
maries, and of course an overwhelming victory was shown in his 
favor, which was exploited all over the country. The organization 
being in the hands of the Roosevelt men, the Taft adherents did the 
only thing in their power and called mass conventions in the various 
wards and precincts, held a convention, and elected the Taft dele¬ 
gates, Avho were the contestants. The position taken by the Taft 
•people before the national committee was consistent throughout 
all the contests, viz, that unless intentional disfranchisement or falsi¬ 
fication of returns was shown, regularity of procedure and duly 
accredited certificates from regular conventions should prevail. In 
this case, however, it was claimed, and with good reason, that there 
had been a deliberate disfranchi.sement of Republican voters and 
wliolly unwarranted conditions attached. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

There were contests from the third, fourth, and ninth North Caro¬ 
lina districts, but none of the conte.stees or contestants were claimed 
Lor Taft. 


THIRD OKLAHOMA DISTRICT. 

In the third congressional district of Oklahoma two conventions 
were held and two sets of delegates and alternates were elected to 
represent the district in the Chicago convention. Both conventions 
were held under the same call, on the same day, and in the same city, 
but in different halls, on March 14. The call for the convention 
did not designate the hall where the convention was to be held. On 
the morning of the day fixed for holding the convention the con¬ 
gressional committee met, all of the 19 counties composing the 
district being represented by the duly elected committeemen or by 
proxy. Three counties—Tulsa, Delaware, and Cherokee—were in 
contest and the delegations from these counties held the balance of 
power in the convention. The congressional committee was made up 


41 


of 12 Taft men and 7 Koosevelt men. 4Tie chairman, W. S'. Coch¬ 
ran, \va.- a Roosevelt man, and he attempted by unfair and arbitrary 
rulini 2 ;.s to overcome the will of the majority of the committee. He 
refused to allow the committee to elect its own choice as secretary 
in the absence of the regular secretary and ruled out one proxy and 
recognized another proxy, refusing to allow the committee to deter¬ 
mine its own membership. On one roll, with 11 votes one way and 
<S votes another, the chairman announced the result of the vote 
exactly oi)po.^ite to the real fact. 

Tn this situation written charges were preferred against the chair¬ 
man, based ui)on his illegal and high-handed conduct, and a motion 
to sustain the charges against the chairman and declare his position 
vacant was i)ut to the committee and was carried by a vote of 11 
mend)ers of the committee who were |)resent. Cochran thereupon an¬ 
nounced the committee ad journed to 1.30 p. m., although the hour of 
11 was fixed for the convention, and the committee had not yet fin¬ 
ished its business, and with a minority of the committee walked out 
of the room. The majority of the committee which remained con¬ 
tinued its business by electing a chairman and secretary, proceeded 
to make u]) the temporary roll for the convention, and a])pointed a 
]>lace for it to meet, and the regular district convention was accord¬ 
ingly held at the place appointed by the committee in the World 
Ruilding in Tulsa at 11 o'clock a. m., of which ample notice was 
given to all delegates. This convention was duly called to order; the 
temporary, roll prepared by the congressional committee was made 
the permanent roll; a majority of the delegates duly elected to the 
convention were in attendance, and Judge Jo.^cph A. Gill and Mr. J. 
W. Gilliland were elected delegates to the national convention. The 
credentials of the delegates to the district convention, certified to by 
the chairman and secretaries of the several county committees, re¬ 
mained in the possession of the majority of the congre.^sional com¬ 
mittee and were filed with the national committee with the other 
records in the case. Every county in the district had its representa¬ 
tion and vote in the regular convention, and no per.xon properly 
accredited as delegate was excluded or debarred from participating 
in its procedings. The call for the convention expressly provided 
that the delegates actually in attendance from any county could 
cast the entire vote for that county. 

JJie right of Mr. Cochran to act as chairman of the committee was 
disputed because he had moved from one county in the district to 
another county in the district and ]>oth of these counties had other 


representatives upon the committee. A\heii Cochran was removed 
as chairman and withdrew from the meeting of the committee only 
one regularly elected member of the committee went with him; the 
others who left the hall at that time being all either proxies or 
appointees of the said Cochran. Of the 11 members voting to depose 
Cochran, 9 members of the committee were present in person and 2 
were represented by proxies. As both the county of Cochran’s former 
residence and the county to which he had removed had their repre¬ 
sentatives pre.«ent at the meeting of the committee, it was clear that 
Cochran did not represent any county, and therefore had no right to 
act as a member of the committee. 

Assuming that all the committee who went oat u'ith Cochran had 
the right to act on the committee, it left the committee standing 12 
for Taft and 7 for Roosevelt, so it was simplg a question whether a 
majority of the committee had the right to control its action or a 
minority. 

After Cochran was deposed as chairman of the committee and 
walked out of the committee meeting with less than a quorum of 
its members, he called a meeting to order in the Grand Opera House, 
which meeting called itself the congrei'sional convention of the third 
congressional district of Oklahoma, and proceeded to elect delegates 
to the national convention. This meeting was not attended by a 
majority of the duly elected delegates to the convention. It did not 
have the credentials from the various counties, and its membership 
was largely made up of bystanders who had not been duly accredited 
by any county in the district. Its action was entirely without 
authority. 

On the .shoeing of facts thus made, which was amplv supported 
by testimony, the national committee retained the Taft delegates 
in their seats without division and its action was su.riained by the 
committee on credentials. 

FIRST SOUTH CAROLINA. 

In the first congressional district of South Carolina a contest was 
presented before the national committee, but it was of the most 
frivolous character. The convention was regularly called and con¬ 
sisted of 82 delegates. After the convention hall duly organized 
4 of the delegates walked out, 1 of whom afterwards returned. 
The convention proceeded with its business and elected Taft dele¬ 
gates to the national convention. Twenty-eight of the regularly 
elected delegates to the convention out of 82 .signed a .riatement that 


43 


they had participated in the proceedings of the convention and had 
voted for the Taft delegates. These delegates were held entitled to- 
their seats by the unanimous vote of the national committee, and the 
contest was not appealed to the committee on credentials. 

TENNESSEE. 

Tennessee contests were filed in the first, second, ninth, and tenth 
districts. In the first and tenth districts both sets of delegates 
claimed to be for Taft. In the first, second, and ninth districts the 
question at issue was which was the regular Republican organization. 
In the first district that organization was recognized which nomi¬ 
nated and elected the present Republican Congressman from that 
district, Hon. Sam R. Sells. 

SECOND TENNESSEE DISTRICT. 

In the second district that organization was recognized which nom¬ 
inated and elected tvdce in succession the present Republican Con¬ 
gressman from that district, Hon. Richard W. Austin. T. A. Wright 
and John J. Jennings were regularly elected delegates. There have 
been two organizations in this district, each claiming to be the regu¬ 
lar Republican organization. Wright and Jennings were elected by 
the organization which was duly recognized in 1910 by the Republi¬ 
can national congressional committee as the regular Republican or¬ 
ganization of said district. It elected Hon. R. W. Austin a Member 
of Congress in 1908 and 1910, and there can be no question that the- 
Austin organization was the one which was entitled to representation 
in the national convention. 

The congressional committee met December 30, 1911, and called a 
district convention to meet March 9 at the courthouse in Knoxville. 
The action of this committee was unanimous on all questions. This^ 
district is composed of 10 counties. Due notice was given of the 
congressional convention. 

IVhen the convention met March 9 delegations from 5 of the 10' 
counties reported no contests. Contests were reported in two coun¬ 
ties under a mistaken apprehension of facts and were abandoned. 
This made 59 delegates which were entirely uncontested out of a 
possible total of 108 in the convention. 

The contests from the three other counties were referred by the 
congressional committee to the convention itself. Under party law 
and authority in Tennessee the congressional committee has the- 


44 


authority to make up the temporary roll of the convention, hut in 
the case of these three contests the entire matter was referred to the 
convention. This left 49 delegates whose right to seats in the con¬ 
vention was held in suspense. 

After the temporary organization of the convention, a committee 
on credentials was appointed and retired from the hall to hear the 
contests. Instead of presenting their case to the committee on cre¬ 
dentials, the contestants from these three counties abandoned their 
contests and held a bolting convention. The committee on creden¬ 
tials thereupon made a report seating Republicans from these three 
counties claiming to have been regularly elected. When the other 
contestants from these three counties refused to submit their case to 
the credentials committee they lost whatever right they had to seats 
in the convention. The delegations from two counties which Avere 
reported for Roosevelt remained in the regular convention and took 
part in the proceedings. T. A. Wright and John J. Jennings were 
elected delegates to Chicago by this the only regular Republican con¬ 
vention held in the second congressional district of Tennessee. 

After the bolters had held their convention on ^larch 9, they real¬ 
ized their action was not regular and caused to be resurrected a rem¬ 
nant of what was knoAvn as the old Hale congressional committee, 
which had been discredited and repudiated by the Republican con¬ 
gressional committee in 1910, and through that repudiated commit¬ 
tee called a new congressional convention. Seven of the counties in 
the district absolutely refused to send delegates to this rump con¬ 
vention. 

Hon. John 0. Houk and Judge H. B. Lindsay, contestants, had 
no claim moreover to seats in the national convention, for the fur¬ 
ther reason that they took part in the county ma.ss conventions called 
by order of the Austin congre.ssional committee. Having thereby 
recognized the Austin organization as the regular Republican organ¬ 
ization in the district, and having taken part in the county conven¬ 
tions called by said organization, they Avere thereby estopped from 
attempting to deny the legality of the Austin organization and had 
no right to organize or take part in any other organization acting in 
conflict thereAAdth. 


XIXTH TENNESSEE DISTRICT. 

In the ninth congressional district of Tennessee there are two 
organizations which claim to be the regular Republican organiza¬ 
tion of the district. Both organizations nominated candidates for 



45 


Congress two years ago. and the Kepublicans of the district ex¬ 
pressed their choice between the two organizations by casting 1,406 
votes for the organization which later elected the regailar Taft dele¬ 
gates to the Republican national convention, as against 940 votes 
for the candidate representing the organization which elected the 
Roosevelt delegates, and the State executive committee in the elec¬ 
tion of 1910 recognized that organization which elected the Taft 
delegates in 1912 as the regular organization in that district. The 
head of the Roosevelt organization is G. T. Taylor, of Union City, 
who is the State treasurer, having been elected by the Democratic 
legislature of the State, and the chairman of the committee, Mr. 
Burdick, supported the Democratic candidate for governor in 1910 
as against the regular Republican candidate and made public boast 
of it. The Taylor organization held one convention on March 26 
and instructed for Taft. The regular 80 days’ notice was not given 
for that convention, and a second convention was called to meet 
]\Iay 15. It is very doubtful if the ])roper notice was given for this 
convention. The same delegates and alternates were elected to the 
Chicago convention Avho were elected on March 26, but this time 
they were instructed for Roosevelt. 

This case was decided by the national committee for the Taft 
delegates; and when the case was called for a hearing before the 
committee on credentials the Roosevelt contestants did not appear, 
and the case was decided against them by default. 

TENTH TENNESSEE DISTRICT. 

The national committee sustained the regularly elected Taft dele¬ 
gates from the Tenth congressional district of Tennessee. The 
contestants, who originally claimed they were for Taft, but subse¬ 
quently announced themselves in favor of Roosevelt, failed to pre¬ 
sent their case before the committee on credentials, and it was de¬ 
cided against them by default. 


TEXAS. 

The issue as to the eight delegates at large from the State of Texas 
is not merely a political one but a moral one. It was not alone a 
question whether the votes should go to Taft or to Roosevelt. It was 
also a question whether the Republican Party in the State should be 
relieved from the death grip of the arbitrary and unscrupulous 
political machine which had dominated it for years and was destroy- 


46 


ing the party in the State rather than building it up. In 1896 the 
Republican Party cast 167,000 votes in the State; in 1900 the Re¬ 
publican vote was 121,000; in 1904 Roosevelt received 51,000 votes; 
in 1908 Taft got 65,000; and in 1910 the Republican candidate for 
governor, nominated at a small machine convention, received only 
20,000 Republican votes. This result has come about at a time when 
the financial and business growth of the State, largely due to the 
influx of northern men and capital, has been marvelous, and when 
the chief port of Texas has become the second port in the United 
States. 

The constant effort of the party organization seems to have been 
to reduce the Republican vote and confine it to officeholders and 
their relatives, so that there might be enough of the loaves and fishes 
to go around. As evidence of this the State chairman, Col. Cecil 
Lyon, who has held that office continuously since 1900 and has 
been a member of the Republican national committee since 1904, 
stated in a printed circular that every Federal officeholder in the 
State, except four or five, had been appointed on his recommenda¬ 
tion. There are some 2,800 of such appointees, the larger number 
of whom were appointed during the administration of President 
Roosevelt and have not been replaced under the present administra¬ 
tion. These officeholders furnish the main backing of the Lyon 
machine. Further evidence was furnished in the testimony which 
was submitted showing that Col. Lyon was deliberately attempting 
to exclude the colored Republican vote, in an effort to build up a 
white man’s party in the State. A postal card, dated May 12, 1912, 
over his own signature, which had been circulated broadcast through 
the State, was in evidence, in which he stated that the time had come 
when the voters must decide whether the negro or the white man 
was to rule in the State of Texas. 

The system was maintained in every State convention by the use 
of credentials from counties with an inconsiderable Republican vote, 
which were given as large a representation in the State convention 
as were counties casting the bulk of the Republican vote. 

There is a primary election law in the State of Texas, under 
which parties casting over 100,000 votes are required to act. Its 
provisions are optional with parties casting less than 100,000 votes. 
Section 139 of the law provides that any political party desiring 
to elect delegates to a national convention shall hold a convention, 
and that said convention shall be composed of delegates duly elected 
by the voters in said political party in the several counties of the 


47 


State at primary elections. Under the terms of this primary hnv 
the ratio of representation in Democratic conventions was first 
fixed at one delegate for each county, and no additional delegate 
unless the party cast in that county 500 votes and a major fraction 
thereof at the last general election. In other words, unless the 
party cast more than 750 votes in a county it would be entitled t .) 
only one delegate in the State convention. Another section of the 
same law, said to have been adopted later because of the growth 
of the Democratic vote, placed the representation at 300 votes and 
a major fraction thereof. There is nothing whatever in the law 
compelling the Republican party in the State of Texas to adopt 
either ratio of representation, but the Lyon machine has declared 
that it was bound by the Terrill law, although disregarding some of 
its important provisions. 

There are in the State of Texas 249 counties, of which 4 have no 
county government. The remaining 245 counties were entitled to 
1,008 delegates in the State convention with 248 votes. In the west¬ 
ern part of the State there are 99 counties which cast at the last 
election a total of only 2,184 Republican votes. Nine of these coun¬ 
ties did not cast a single Republican vote, and 32 other counties cast 
less than 10 Republican votes each. In these same 99 counties no 
conventions or primaries were held to elect delegates to the State 
convention, and in most of them there is no Republican organization 
whatsoever, and none of them, whether under the State election law 
or by rules of fairness, equity, and decent party usuage, was entitled 
to a vote in this Republican convention. It appeared from the proofs 
submitted and affidavits offered in evidence, both from county clerks 
with whom returns of political organizations are required to be filed, 
and from others, that the organization in these sparsely settled coun¬ 
ties is nonexistent. It was the practice of the machine to send blank 
credentials to a friendly postmaster in each one of these counties hav¬ 
ing no party organization, and these credentials, after being signed 
by two Republicans, one as chairman and the other as secretary, but 
without the holding of a primary election or a county convention, 
would be sent, with a proxy from the delegate named, oftentimes to a 
person living 500 miles away but who was a member or friend of the 
State machine. It was by the use of credentials thus secured from 
the sparsely settled counties, having few or no Republican voters, 
that the Lyon machine has been able for years to control State con¬ 
ventions in Texas, and the present contest was the result of a de¬ 
termined effort on the part of the Republicans of the State to free 
tiiemselves from an insufferable system. 


48 


The Terrell law requires that in each county the party chairinaii 
‘^hall he elected and his name certified to the county clerk. In many of 
these 99 counties this was not done. Disregarding the delegates from 
these 99 counties not entitled to he re])resented because no hona fide 
conventions or primaries were held therein, would leave delegates 
from 149 counties entitled to 152 votes in the State convention. 01 
the counties entitled to representation in the convention Taft carried 
at least 89. with 90 votes. 

When the State committee, which was overwhelmingly dominated 
by Col. Lyon, the Eoosevelt manager of the State, met to make up 
the temporary roll, objection was made by Mr. .John E. Elgin, a 
Taft committeeman, against the seating of delegates from these 99 
countie.^ on grounds which were set out in detail. Pending this 
protest, a motion was made that the delegates from the remaining 
counties he placed upon the temporary roll. A motion to amend by 
having the roll of the remaining counties and the delegates repre¬ 
senting them called, that the committee might know what counties 
and delegates were seated, was voted down. A subsequent demand 
for a list of the counties and delegates was denied, and the origiiud 
motion was adopted. 

The chairman had reported that 16 contests existed and these 
were referred to subcommittees, who unseated the Taft delegates, 
and their action was confirmed by the committee. Elgin’s protest 
was then taken up and repeated, and upon motion the protest was 
dismissed, and the delegates from the 99 counties in question were 
])laced upon the temporary roll. i\Ir. Elgin had offered as a substi¬ 
tute a motion to fix the basis of representation in the convention os 
one vote for each hundred votes cast for President Taft, but provid 
ing that each county in which conventions were held should have ar 
least one vote. This motion was voted down. 

Xo tickets were issued by the committee to contesting delegations, 
and thereupon the Taft delegates, repre.senting more than a majoritv 
of the counties legally entitled to seats in the convention, marched 
in a body to Byers’ Opera House, in the city of Fort MArth, and 
assembled in convention. An elaborate report was made to this con¬ 
vention of the proceedings of the State committee, in whicli the fol¬ 
lowing language occurs : 

We are confronted ^Yith the condition that at least one-tenth of the entire 
Republican vote of this State was cast in two counties in the last presidential 
election ; yet, under the apportionment made hy the executive committee, these 
two comities are entitled to only three votes ont of 2.50, and to he re])resented 
hy 12 delegates ont of a possible 1,000 as ])rovided in the call of the State 


49 


cliairiiiaii. In addition to this there are 72 eonnties in this State in each 
of ^yhich were not cast to exceed 15 votes at the last election. These comities 
nevertheless are entitled to 288 dele,ijates under the call of the State chairman. 
It is preposterous to claim that those comities in which were cast less, than 15 
votes should have the same voting power in this convention as the counties of 
Dallas, Harris, Bexar, and Travis, in which over 1,000 votes were cast at the 
presidential election. To say that this is required by the Terrell election law of 
this State is a manifest perversion of the law, which was intended to secure 
honest elections and an honest expression of party sentiment. A claim based 
upon such a pretense is a palpable fraud upon the right of the voter to have 
his will honestly and fairly exiiressed. Such procedure would neither stimulate 
party zeal nor iiromote party growth. We not only can not submit to any 
such idea but utterly reimdiate it. A convention organized upon such a plan 
is one in name only. It is not a Republican convention. It is a fraud upon 
Reimblican voters because their will can not be fairly expressed upon any 
substantial issue. 

The convention wa.« reo’nlarly organized by the adoi)tion of a 
teni]iorary and permanent organization. Committees on credentials, 
resolutions, and order of business were appointed and their reports 
accepted. A basis of representation was adojited identical with that 
proposed by Mr. Elgin to the State committee, and the convention 
was constituted in accordance therewith. It remained in session 
throughout the day, with a recess. At this convention the Taft dele¬ 
gates at large to Chicago were elected. All of them will support the 
Kepublican national ticket there named. Electors at large were 
chosen, and the records duly certified by the chairman and secretary 
of the convention and transmitted to the Republican national com¬ 
mittee. 

Throwing out the votes in those counties where there was no 
Republican organization and where no conventions were held to 
.^end delegates to the State convention, the Taft forces were clearly 
in control in the State convention. Had the delegates to that con¬ 
vention been elected on a basis of representation that would ha\’3 
given the Republican strongholds in the State fair ])ro])ortional 
representation, the Taft majority in the State convention would 
have been much larger, for the reason that the large cities in the 
State were the centers of overwhelming pro-Taft and anti-Lyon 
sentiment. 

The national committee decided that the convention held in 
Byers Ojicra House repre.sented the real Republican sentiment of the 
State of Texas; that it was fully justified in pur.^uing the course it 
did in order to overthrow a bo.s.^-ridden machine; that it endeavored 
to reflect and give effect to the Republican sentiment of the State, 


4 - D 





50 


and the delegates elected by it were declared the duly elected dele¬ 
gates to the national convention. This decision was confirmed by 
the committee on credentials and by the national convention itself. 

FIRST TEXAS DISTRICT. 

The Taft delegates from the first congressional district of Texas 
were seated because it appeared from the records that the Roosevelt 
faction bolted when it found it could not control the convention. 
The first congressional district is composed of 11 counties, each 
county having 1 vote, except Cass County, which has 2, making 12 
votes in the congressional convention. The executive committee, 
composed of 1 representative from each county, made up the tempo¬ 
rary roll, and in the contests filed from two counties seated both 
delegates with one-half vote each. The convention elected the 2 
Taft delegates, giving them 1014 votes. Every county was repre¬ 
sented in this vote. Three Federal officeholders, representing 1% 
votes, bolted the regular convention and held a rump meeting. 

A stenographic report of the proceedings of the rump convention 
showed beyond question that the Roosevelt faction was in the 
minority. The brief filed by the Roosevelt contestants admitted that 
the majority of the executive committee, which made up the tempo¬ 
rary roll call of the regular convention, favored Taft. The testimony 
showed that there were 1014 votes in the congressional convention 
for Taft and 1% votes for Roosevelt. 

The minutes of the convention, supported by affidavits from a 
majority of the duly elected delegates, showed conclusively that the 
regular convention was properly organized and held in accordance 
with the call of the National Committee and elected the two Taft 
delegates. The national committee, by itnammovs vote, decided 
the contest in favor of the Taft delegates. 

SECOND TEXAS DISTRICT. 

The regularly elected delegates from the second congressional 
district of Texas were C. Tv. Rutt and George lAb Eason. The con¬ 
vention which elected the Roosevelt claimants consisted of 6 men, 
who met in the mayor's office in the city of Nacogdoches, with the 
doors locked, during a part of the time that the regular convention 
was in session in the city hall. The mayor furnished an affidavit 
that he had occasion to go to his office for some papers; that he 
found the door locked, and upon being admitted found five or six 




51 


men holding this so-called convention. The stenographer, whose rec¬ 
ords of the convention were submitted to the national committee, 
furnished an affidavit in which he said that these records were dic¬ 
tated to him by the chairman, who gave the names of the 6 men 
present, showing that they were from only 4 counties of the 14 in 
the district. All of these men had participated in the regular con¬ 
vention held in the city hall and had bolted after the convention 
had been organized. 

The circumstances leading to this situation were as follows: The 
regularly elected chairman of the district committee resigned the 
chairmanship, and Col. Cecil Lyon appointed E. G. Christian, one 
of the committeemen, in his place. Mr. Christian, without attempt¬ 
ing to call the committee together, claims in his brief to have called 
a district convention to be held at Lufkin on the 16th day of May, 
but he does not claim to have made any publication, as was required 
by the national committee call. The majority of the committee 
asked and received from the assistant attorney general of Texas a 
written opinion that the committee itself had the right to elect its 
own chairman. 

The secretary thereupon and upon the request in writing of a 
majority of the committee, called the committee together for the 
purpose of electing a chairman and of calling a district convention. 
A majority of the members of the committe’e, including ^Ir. Chris¬ 
tian, was present. C. L. Rutt was elected chairman and the 
district convention was called to meet at Nacogdoches on the 17th 
day of May, and due notice by publication of the call was made. 
In his brief Mr. Christian stated that by consent of the majority of 
the committee the place and date for the holding of his convention 
was changed to Nacogdoches and the 17th of May. The brief filed 
by Mr. Christian is apparently based on the idea that a convention 
was held pursuant to the terms of his call, but the position is en¬ 
tirely untenable, since he was not legally the chairman, and if he 
had been he would have had no authority to issue the call except 
by authority of the committee. He acquiesced in the choice of Rult 
as chairman both at the committee meeting and subsequently at the 
convention. 

Before the assembling of the convention the district committee 
met to prepare the temporary roll of the convention. ^Mr. Chris¬ 
tian made no effort to preside, although he was present. Two coun¬ 
ties were found not to have held conventions and one county to have 
no delegate present. Notice of a contest in Harrison County was 



52 


received, but was not presented to the committee, and the roll was 
made up seating the delegations that held regular credentials. 

The district convention was called to order by C. L. Rutt; the ofh- 
cial call and the report of the district committee were read, including 
in the latter the nomination of Geo. W. Eason for temporary chair¬ 
man. Mr. Christian was also put in nomination, and upon roll call 
Mr. Eason was elected and presided over the convention. A committee 
on credentials was appointed and the convention took a recess un.il 
afternoon. The report of the committee on credentials was accepted 
upon roll call and the representatives of five counties withdrew from 
the hall. The representatives of four of these counties, as previously 
stated, held the alleged convention in the mayor’s office. 

The regular convention remained in session several hours; ap¬ 
pointed the usual committees, which retired and made their reports, 
which were accepted; elected C. L. Rutt and Geo. W. Eason delegates 
to the national convention, and certified their election in due form to 
the national committee. Affidavits of the county judge, of the mayor 
of the city, and the city attorney, who attended the convention, but 
were not delegates, showed the complete regularity of the convention. 

FOURTH TEXAS DISTRICT. 

The fourth Texas congressional district consists of five counties, 
each having one vote in the district convention under the call of th 3 
congressional executive committee. Only one county. Rains, chose 
an uncontested delegation, and that delegation was for Taft. The 
other four counties, Collin, Grayson, Hunt, and Fannin, sent con¬ 
testing delegations. On the day of the convention, and prior to its 
meeting, representatives from each of the four counties sending con¬ 
testing delegations made an effort to appear before the congressional 
executive committee and present their claims for seats in the con¬ 
vention. The congressional committee arbitrarily refused to hear 
anybody. The contesting delegations then appeared before the cre¬ 
dentials committee, but that committee refused to hear the evidence. 
The contestants were then permitted to make a statement on the 
floor of the convention as to their claims for seats in the convention, 
but no vote was permitted to be taken as to the merits of their 
claims. Having exhausted every effort to secure a hearing, the four 
contesting delegations, together with the only uncontested delegatioji 
of the convention, withdrew to another place and held a convention 
and elected Taft delegates to the Chicago convention, who were 
seated by the national committee and the committee on credentials. 



53 


Ihe evidence produced relating to the four contested delegations in 
the congressional convention established clearly the following facts : 

In Collin County the control of the county turned upon one precinct 
where the Taft men were in undisputed control and elected delegates 
who were refused seats. Had the properly elected delegates been 
seated, the Collin County convention would have selected an uncon¬ 
tested delegation to the congressional convention. 

In Grayson County, in one precinct colored Republicans were kept 
out of the caucus by the aid of the State militia until the business of 
the caucus was concluded. From another precinct delegates were 
seated who had been chosen by a rump meeting, and the Taft dele¬ 
gates, duly chosen, Avere refused admission. Had these negro Repub¬ 
licans not been disfranchised and had the duly elected delegates from 
the other precinct been seated, Grayson Avould have sent a Taft 
delegation to the congressional convention. 

Similar irregular and illegal practices prevented the selection of a 
Taft delegation in Hunt CountAV The regularly elected delegates in 
Fannin County were also for Taft, while the Roosevelt delegates Avere 
irregularly selected in a mass convention. 

The congressional convention Avhich elected the Taft delegates Avas 
composed of more than a majority, and, indeed, of practically all the 
regularly elected delegates. 


FIFTH TEXAS DISTRICT. 

The fifth congressional district of Texas is made up of Dallas, 
Ellis, Hill, Bosque, and RockAvall Counties. Two district con\^en- 
tions Avere held at the same time and place in the same hall, each 
claiming to be the regular convention. Dallas County cast more Re¬ 
publican votes than all the other counties of the district put together. 
The call for the congressional convention alloAved each county to send 
not to exceed four delegates, but made no reference to the basis of 
representation of the respective counties composing the district. 
There Avas a contest from Dallas County, but the Taft delegates AA^ere 
seated. The testimony shoAA^ed that the sentiment among voters in 
that county Avas oA^erAvhelmingly in favor of Taft. Taft delegates 
AA’ere seated on the temporary roll from tAA^o counties, and Roo.sevelt 
delegates from three counties, and the representation in the conven¬ 
tion AA^as fixed at one vote for each county Avithout regard to the 
number of delegates in the convention or the number of Republican 
votes cast in such county. When the convention assembled a mi- 


54 


nority report of the district committee Avas presented, protesting 
against the seating of the Roosevelt delegates from Hill County and 
protesting against the ratio of representation adopted, which de¬ 
prived Dallas County of its rightful voting strength in the conven¬ 
tion. The chairman of the convention objected to the presentation 
of this minority report. Failing in this he abandoned the platform 
and left the hall. 

Being left without officers, the convention thereupon elected a new 
chairman and a new secretary, appointed a. committee on credentials 
Avhich recommended the seating of the Taft delegates from Hill 
County and the adoption of the minority report of the district com¬ 
mittee as to the basis of the representation in the convention. Both 
these recommendations Avere adopted, and Taft delegates to the 
national convention Avere thereupon elected by a vote of eight to 
three. The Roosevelt men thereafter retired to the south end of the 
hall AAdiere they organized a meeting at Avhich it Avas claimed the 
Roosevelt delegates to the national convention AA^ere elected. The 
editor of the Dallas Express, AV. E. King, and a resident of Dallas 
for 20 years, furnished an affidavit in which he testified that he had 
attended many conventions and never before had he seen a chairman 
refuse to alloAv a minority report to be read, and Avhen his order was 
not obeyed he left the platform and retired to the south end of the 
hall Avhere he and a feAv others held a meeting, but that the Taft con¬ 
vention Avas more numerously attended than the Roosevelt conven¬ 
tion. He says it has been customary in all congressional conventions 
to take the basis of representation from the last presidential vote in 
the respectiA^e counties. The Republican vote for the district for 1908 
Avas as folloAA’s: Dallas County, 2,068; Ellis, 594; Hill, 414; Bosque, 
266; RoclvAvall, 38. Under the election laAV of Texas the Democratic 
party, because it casts over 100,000 votes, is required to nominate 
each candidate by a primary, Avhile the Republican party is not so 
required, but may nominate by convention. The basis of representa¬ 
tion in the Democratic convention is one to each 300 votes cast, but 
that rule does not apply to Republican conventions. 

The national committee and the committee on credentials and the 
convention itself sustained the title of the Taft delegates to their 
seats. 

SEVENTH TEXAS DISTRICT. 

The Taft delegates from the seventh congressional district, J. H. 
IlaAvley and H. L. Price, Avere duly elected by the regularly consti- 


55 


tilted coiivention of that district. The Roosevelt contestants were 
elected at a convention held without authority. The facts in regard 
to this contest, as presented to the national commdttee, were as 
folloT;^ s: 

The seventh congressional district of Texas is composed of the 
following counties: Anderson, Chambers, Galveston, Houston, 
Liberty, Polk, San Jacinto, and Trinity. The counties of Polk, 
San Jacinto, and Trinity were without proper party organization. 
In Texas county chairmen must be elected by the voters in each 
party. No such election was held in aii}^ of these three counties. In 
two of them Col. Lyon assumed to appoint chairmen, which he had 
no right to do. Lyon himself had classed these three counties as 
unorganized and without party organization. 

The regular convention met in Galveston on April 9, 1912, after 
proper publication of the call as required by the regulations of the 
national committee. The executive committee met prior to the 
meeting of the convention to make up the temporary roll of dele¬ 
gates. Certain persons claiming to represent the three unorganized 
counties appeared before the executive committee and asked to have 
their names placed upon the temporary roll. Inasmuch as none of 
these three counties were properly organized according to the laws 
of Texas, and inasmuch as these representatives had no credentials 
showing that they were entitled to represent the said counties, it 
was decided by the executive comimittee not to place them upon the 
temporary roll. When this action was taken by the executive com¬ 
mittee Mr. Clinton, a delegate from Houston County, and the alleged 
representative from the three unorganized counties withdrew from 
the meeting and proceeded to organize another convention, sending 
the contesting delegation to the national convention. 

When .the convention met, after the election of a temporary chair¬ 
man the usual committees were appointed. A committee on creden¬ 
tials was regularly selected according to the party law of Texas, and 
that committee proceeded to hear all contests and to make up the 
permanent roll of the convention. The parties claiming to represent 
the aforesaid three unorganized counties did not present their claims 
to this committee, nor did they appear in the convention to present 
their right to represent their respective counties in said convention, 
although repeatedly invited to do so. 

The report of the credentials committee was submitted to the con¬ 
vention and adopted, and that convention elected J. LI. Hawley and 
H. L. Price as delegates to the national convention. 


EIGHTH TEXAS DISTRICT. 

In the eighth Texas congressional convention a split occurred 
over the majority and minority reports of the executive committee as 
to the temporary roll. The Roosevelt followers controlled the execu¬ 
tive committee but did not have a majority in the convention which 
adopted the minority report and gave Taft 5^/2 votes and Roosevelt 
214 votes. The Roosevelt followers thereupon bolted. In a county 
not represented, due notice was not given of the county convention 
and no delegates were therefore legally selected in that county. The 
testimony showed that a majority of the duly elected delegates par¬ 
ticipated in the convention which elected Taft delegates to the na¬ 
tional convention and Charles A. Warnken and Spencer Graves were 
duly seated as such delegates. 

NINTH TEXAS DISTRICT. 

The Taft delegates from the ninth Texas congressional district 
were C. M. Hughes and M. ^1. Rogers. The district cominittee met 
April 13 on the call of J. H. Speaker, a recognized member of the 
committee. He took this step because the chairman of the committee 
refused to convene the committee for the purpose of issuing a call 
for a district convention. A letter was presented to the national 
committee signed by the chairman in which he said that the at¬ 
torney general had ruled that all delegates from, Texas to the na¬ 
tional convention ntust be elected in the State convention to be 
held for that purpose in Fort Worth May 28. He declared that as 
he was directed by his superior, the State chairman. Col. Lyon, he 
had concluded not to hold a district convention. This was in ac¬ 
cordance with the original idea of the State chairman, that all dis¬ 
trict delegates from Texas must be elected at the State convention. 
The chairman also said in ‘the same letter that it was not necessary 
to give 30 days’ notice of a district convention, because the Texas 
election law did not so specify. In order that 30 days’ notice might 
be given of the district convention and that the delegates should 
be elected 30 days before the date of the meeting of the national 
convention as required by the call of the national committee, J. H. 
Speaker, a member of the district committee, called the commit¬ 
tee to meet April 13; seven members attended the meeting, and the 
district convention was called to meet on May 15 in Victoria. Due 
notice was given of this convention. Eleven counties out of 15 coun- 


57 


ties responded to the call and participated in this convention. Three 
counties were not represented and in one of these there was no 
■election. 

After this convention had been called the chairman of the district 
committee changed his mind about not calling a district convention, 
and called a meeting of the congressional committee for April 17, 
which was attended by seven members of the executive committee. 
This committee meeting called a congressional convention to be held 
on the 18th of May in the town of Yoakum. The evidence be¬ 
fore the committee was that the first publication of this meeting was- 
on the 21st of April, though an item published in a newspaper at 
Cuero, Dewitt County, Tex., on April 18, stated that a convention had 
been called for May 18. As stated above, no publication of the call 
was made until April 21. There was ample evidence to show that 
the Taft convention was duly and regularly convened, while the 
Roosevelt convention was not. The national committee and the 
committee on credentials therefore seated the Taft delegates. 

TEXTH TEXAS DISTRICT. 

The decision in the contest in the tenth district turned largely upon 
the good faith with which two members of the district committee 
voted in the seating of delegates and upon the good faith with which 
one of them used the proxy intrusted to him. The district consists of 
nine counties. The chairmen of the county committees are ex officio 
miembers of the district committee. H. M. Moore, the district chair¬ 
man, on the 5th of April issued a call for the meeting of the com¬ 
mittee on the 10th day of April to prepare and issue a call for the 
district convention. On April 10 eight counties were represented 
either in the person of members or by proxy, and called the conven¬ 
tion for the district to be held in the city of Austin on May 11, 1912. 
The committee unanimously indorsed W. IT. Taft for renomination 
for President. The counties of Bastrop, Lee, Travis, Washington, 
and Williamson were strongly in favor of the renomination of Presi¬ 
dent Taft, some of them giving instructions for him and others elect¬ 
ing delegates who had declared their preference for him. William 
Anderson, under date of February 28, March 15, and April 3, had 
written letters strongly indorsing President Taft, in one of them 
saying ‘^Bastrop County is coming to the convention 0. K.’’ He 
was elected a delegate from that county and was also a member of 
the committee from that county. M. R. Hoxie and D. H. Kennerly 


58 


were elected delegates from Lee County. Mr. Iloxie was a strong 
Taft man and was given every assurance that Mr. Kennerly was 
the same. Eelying upon this confidence he gave Mr. Kennerly his 
proxy both as chairman and delegate from Lee County, writing 
under date of May 11: have every confidence in ^Ir. Kennerly, 

and he will do all that can be done in your interest.” This confidence 
was shared in by other members of the committee as the result of 
telephone talks with ^Ir. Kennerly's father, who said that his son 
would support delegates to the national convention at Chicago favor¬ 
able to the renomination of Taft for President. 

The district committee assembled on the 11th day of ]ylay in the 
city of Austin to prepare the roll and arrange for the temporary 
organization of the convention which was to meet at 1 o clock. 
Lee, Travis, and AVashington Counties were refused seats in the 
temporary organization, and upon the question of the irregularity 
of the election of delegates from Hays County the vote stood 4 in 
the affirmative and 4 in the negative, the committeeman for Hays 
County being allowed to vote. The chairman cast the deciding 
vote against the county. Air. Anderson, representing Bastrop 
County, voted in the negative, but shortly afterwards moved that 
the vote be reconsidered, and upon reconsideration changed the 
vote of Bastrop County, so that the result was 5 for and 3 against 
the seating of delegates from Hays County, the Hays County repre¬ 
sentative again voting to seat the county. The circumstances 
brought to the attention of the national committee were of such 
a character as to indicate that Anderson’s motion to reconsider and 
change the vote Avere due to other considerations than those affecting 
the merits of the case. He subsequently made an affidavit Avhich 
was filed Avith the national committee in Avhich he said that he 
acted correctly in voting against Hays County and Avas guilty of 
‘‘error” in the change Avhich he made. 

D. H. Kennerly, aa4io held the proxy for Air. Hoxie, cast the vote of 
Lee County in favor of seating the Hays County delegates. Both 
Anderson and Kennerly voted for a Roosevelt delegate for tempor¬ 
ary chairman of the convention. The committee adjourned and the 
convention -was immediately called to order by the district chairman, 
Air. Aloore, Avho announced the violation of instructions above recited. 
The Roosevelt candidate for temporary chairman Avas elected by the 
convention so organized and the chairman appointed a committee of 
five on credentials. Tavo of these Avere members from Hays Ceunty, 


59 


which was the county in contest, and one was William Anderson, of 
Bastrop County. The other two members were Roosevelt men. 
Upon this action the Taft delegates left the hall and immediately, 
and in the same building, organized another convention, which con¬ 
sisted of delegates from six counties. Proceedings were regularly 
lield; a permanent organization effected; the report of the committee 
on resolutions adopted, and delegates pledged to President Taft 
were elected. The undisputed evidence indicated that a flagrant 
attempt had been made to deprive Taft of this district, to which he 
was justly entitled. The national committee sustained the title of the 
Taft delegates and alternates by a practically unanimous vote, no roll 
call being asked for. 

FOURTEENTH TEXAS DISTRICT. 

The contest from the fourteenth Texas congressional district de¬ 
pends upon the control of the executive committee of the district, of 
which J. jM. Oppenheimer, one of the Taft delegates to the national 
convention, was and is chairman. There are 15 counties in the dis¬ 
trict. When the executive committee met at San Antonio, on the call 
of the chairman, to make up the temporary roll of the convention, 
tliere were 10 members of the committee present whose right to act 
was undisputed, of whom 6 were for Taft and 4 for Roosevelt. 
There were 4 other Roosevelt men present whose right to vote was 
disputed and who were clearly not entitled to represent their county 
at that meeting. One of them held the proxy of the committeeman 
from Kendall County who was dead, and the proxies from three 
other counties were held, two by postmasters and one by an assistant 
postmaster, while section 60 of the election law of the State of Texas 
expressly provides that no one who holds an office of profit or trust 
under the United States shall act as member of an executive com¬ 
mittee either for tlie State or for any district or county. When the 
committee was in session these four men, one with the proxy from a 
dead man and three postmasters who were disqualified by the law of 
Texas from acting in such capacity, attempted to take part in the pro¬ 
ceedings. The chairman properly refused to permit them to act with 
the committee; and the Taft members having a clear majority, pro¬ 
ceeded to make up the temporary roll of the convention as provided 
by law. 

There was a contest over the delegation from Baxter County, which 
contains the city of San Antonio, the largest city in the State. Full 


60 


consideration was given to this contest, but the testimony was over¬ 
whelming that the Taft sentiment in that county was preponderating, 
and making all due allowance for the Roosevelt claims, Taft carried 
the county by a vote of from four or five to one. When the executive 
com'mittee had made up the temporary roll of the convention it fixed 
the basis of representation in the convention, as it had a right to do 
under the law, and placed it at one vote for each 50 votes cast for the 
Republican candidate at the last presidential election. On this basis 
the total vote in the district convention was 67, of which the number 
instructed or voting for Taft was 37%; the number voting or in¬ 
structed for Roosevelt 28% ; not voting 1. 

On this showing it was plain that the preponderance of sentiment 
among Republicans in this congressional district favored Taft and 
that a majority of the duly elected delegates in the congressional 
convention voted for Taft delegates to the national convention. The 
'national committee by unanimous vote seated the Taft delegates. 


VIRGINIA. 

Contests were filed against the Taft delegates from Virginia at 
large and from every congressional district except the seventh and 
ninth. All of these contesting delegations were worked up weeks 
after the regular conventions had been held. The ground on which 
the contests were based was that the colored Republicans of the State 
had been discriminated against" that they were refused permission 
to take part in the county and district conventions; and that the 
white Republicans of the State were engaged in a conspiracy to 
deprive the colored Republicans of all voice in political matters. 
These charges were found absolutely groundless. The Virginia 
cases were all consolidated, and the Taft delegates were sustained 
by the national committee with only one dissenting vote. The cases 
were appealed to the committee on credentials, but only one ca«e 
was presented to that committee, and that was bv a colored Repub¬ 
lican J. R. Wilson, of Danville, in the fifth congressional district 
He claimed the colored Republicans of that district had been dis- 
crnmnated against, but the only evidence he presented was a handbill 
ca mg on white Republicans to attend a countv convention in that 
county It appeared that this liandbill was 4 vears old. The reou- 
larly elected delegates from the fifth congressional district, who wire 
nninstructed and who had been voting in the convention with the 
Roosevelt supporters, were placed on the permanent roll. 




61 


WASHINGTON. 

Two full delegations, with 14 votes each, claimed to be the regu- 
larl}^ elected delegates for the State of Washington. In that State 
county executive committees have full authority under the law to 
appoint all delegates to district and State conventions. In different 
counties of the State different methods were employed of selecting 
delegates to the 1912 State convention. As an instance, in the counties 
of Ferry, Stevens, and Whalla Walla delegates to the State conven¬ 
tion were picked by the county central committee, and in each of 
these counties a Roosevelt delegation was selected and no question 
of the right of these delegates to sit in the State convention was 
ever raised. The first action taken in any county after the call was 
issued was the selection of a Roosevelt delegation to the State con¬ 
vention from Feri-y County by a Roosevelt county committee. In 
Asotin and King Counties a delegation was likewise selected by the 
county central committee, and in those instances a Taft delegation 
was selected. In Franklin County a delegation was elected by the 
county committee and was instructed for Senator La Follette. In 
many of the other counties some character of a primary election was 
held. For instance, in Pierce County and Spokane County a pri¬ 
mary election was held, resulting in the sending of delegations to 
the State convention instructed for Roosevelt. In Whatcom and 
Skagit Counties, after a primary election was held, delegations were 
sent instructed for Taft. 

There is a primary election law in the State applicable to cities 
which is optional and not mandatory, the county committee having 
the authority to decide in which way the delegates shall be selected. 
If a primary election is ordered, the delegates must be selected 
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the primary law. No¬ 
tices of contest were filed with the Republican State committee in 
practically cver\’' county which was carried for Taft, while the Taft 
men filed only one contest. Before the State convention met the 
Roosevelt supporters demanded that the decision on all contested 
seats should be submitted to the uncontested delegates, who con¬ 
stituted a minority of the convention. In view of this situation, 
which was unprecedented in the State, the Republican State com¬ 
mittee at a meeting held the day before the time fixed for the State 
convention adopted a set of rules for the hearing of contests and 
directed that all credentials he filed with the State committee, which 
should make up a temporary roll, following absolutely in this respect 


62 


the precedent and practice laid down by the national committee. 
The meeting of the State committee to pass upon the credentials 
was largely attended, and every opportunity was given all contest¬ 
ants to present their cases. The committee met in the city council 
chamber at Aberdeen to hear the contests, and when the committee 
was in session the chamber was packed with men who endeavored in 
every possible way to overawe and intimidate the committee and pre¬ 
vent a fair determination of the contests, but the committee was un¬ 
disturbed by this riotous demonstration, and the contests were all 
decided by a vote of approximately three to one. The contest from 
King County was presented fully by both sides, and the Taft dele¬ 
gates were placed upon the temporary roll. 

KING COUNTY. 

The control of the State convention depended upon the delegates 
from King County, which includes the city of Seattle. County com¬ 
mittees in Washington are composed of precinct and township com¬ 
mitteemen who are elected by the voters in September primaries held 
in even numbered years. At the time of the last general election held 
in Washington the city of Seattle contained about 250 voting pre¬ 
cincts, and each precinct elected its member of the county committee. 
A majority of this committee of 250 was composed of Taft men. 
This county committee appointed a central committee and gave it 
full power to act in matters coming within the jurisdiction of a 
county committee. It was the central committee composed of 24 
members of the county committee which selected the delegation from 
King County to the State convention, as already stated. The county 
committee approved this action. Thereafter, without legal authority, 
an attempt was made to hold a primary to select such delegation 
to the State convention under the following circumstances: Some 
time before these events the proper municipal authority of Seattle 
redistricted the city so as to create 131 additional election precincts. 
When the 250 regularly constituted committeemen of King’s County 
assembled in April, 1912, there were present 131 strangers who 
claimed to be members by virtue of appointment by the Roosevelt 
county chairman. There had been no election of county committee¬ 
men since the redistricting of the city, but the county chairman as¬ 
sumed the authority of increasing the membership bv 131. 

It was claimed that the count}^ committee had given authority to 
its chairman to fill any vacancies that might occur in the committee. 




63 


It appeared that three such vacancies had been actually filled by the 
chairman. Even if the chairman had the right to fill vacancies he 
clearly had been given no authority, and had no right to name mem¬ 
bers of the county committee where the ap])ointmentvS were not to fill 
vacancies, but were attempts to fill places created in the new appor¬ 
tionment. The central committee had unanimously decided in a 
previous meeting presided over by this very county chairman that 
such places could only be filled at next primary election, to be held 
September, 1912. 

The Roosevelt supporters claimed that the county committee at 
this April meeting voted to hold a county primary for the election of 
delegates to the State convention, and also to revoke the authority 
which had been given to the managing committee. This meeting 
nearly resulted in a riot and so much confusion prevailed while 
it was in session that it was impossible for anyone to know what 
business was transacted. Affidavits were presented to the national 
•committee from 137 members of the county committee, or 12 more 
than a majority, who were present in person or by proxy, to the 
effect that they did not vote for the resolution under which the 
alleged primary was held in King County; that had they been' given 
an opportunity they would have voted against it; that such oppor¬ 
tunity was denied them; and that they approved of the action of 
the central committee of the county committee in appointing the 
Taft delegates to the State convention. The Roosevelt supporters 
proceeded to hold their primary election in King County. Taft 
Republicans were exhorted not to participate and very few of them 
did so. In many precincts of the city not a single Taft vote was cast, 
and in 30 precincts no Republican votes were cast. 

The primary election law of Washington requires that three 
reputable citizens, two to act as judges and one as clerk, for each 
primary election shall be selected by a caucus of qualified voters: 
in each precinct at least one day previous to such primary election, 
and the election of judges and clerks shall be certified to the manag¬ 
ing committee by the officers of such caucus. At the alleged primary 
held in the city of Seattle referred to above the judges and clerks 
were not elected as required by the primary election law, but were 
appointed by the Roosevelt manager. The primary election law also 
provides that after counting the votes, proclaiming the result, and 
signing the returns the judges shall cause the tally lists and ballots 
to be filed with the clerk of the county wherein such election is 


64 


held, whicli tally lists and ballots shall be kept by them as a part of 
the public records until after the adjouruiiieut of the convention 
for which such primaiy election was held. The judges did not, as 
this law provided, cause the tally lists and ballots to be filed with 
the county clerk, but they simply filed the returns with the Roose¬ 
velt committee. Representatives of the daily papers in Seattle who 
kept track of the returns as they were made to the Roosevelt com¬ 
mittee on the night of the primary reported about 3,000 votes for 
Roosevelt. 

The Taft people were refused access to these returns and never 
had an opportunity to see them until they were presented at the 
hearing of the case before the national committee where it was 
claimed that 6,900 votes had been cast for Roosevelt and 500 for 
Taft. The total Republican vote in the city of Seattle is estimated 
at from 70,000 to 75,000, not over 10 per cent of which was cast 
at the Roosevelt julmary held without legal sanction, even admitting 
the total number of votes to have been cast as claimed. The Re¬ 
publican State committee found that the much advertised primary 
election held in the city of Seattle was irregular and illegal, and that 
there was nothing else to do but seat the Taft delegates. Learning 
that the Roosevelt followers were threatening to storm the conven¬ 
tion and take forcible possession of the hall, tickets were prepared 
and issued both for delegates and visitors. Tickets were furnished 
to all county delegates placed upon the temporary roll. Guards 
were placed at the doors of the hall so that unauthorized persons 
might not enter. AVhen the Roosevelt forces found that they could 
not force entrance to the convention hall and that delegates not on 
the temporary roll could not secure admi.'^sion, they bolted and held 
a separate convention. In fact, it was announced on the morning of 
the day the State convention was to be held that the Roosevelt fol¬ 
lowing had hired a hall for that purpose. The regular convention 
proceeded with its business in an orderly way, with a majority of the 
duly elected delegates in attendapce. The report of the committee 
on credentials which was adopted seated all the delegates placed on 
the temporaiT roll by the State committee, except the 8 delegates 
from Clallam County and 61 from Pierce County. The contesting 
delegation from King County refused to .submit its case to the con¬ 
vention. 


65 


DISTRICT DELEGATES. 

The State convention elected 8 delegates at large. The three con¬ 
gressional districts each elected 2 district delegates. The regular 
session of the State convention was recessed to permit the three dis¬ 
trict conventions to meet and to elect district delegates. All 14 
delegates lawfully elected from the State of Washington favored the 
renomination of Taft. All the proceedings of these conventions 
were in strict accordance with party law and custom. 

DEMOCRATIC CONVENTIONS RULED SAME WAY. 

The very same question from King County came up before the 
Democratic State convention, and that body seated the Clark dele¬ 
gation which had been appointed by the county committee and 
refused to seat the Wilson delegates who had been named at an 
irregular primary held at the same time and in the same way as 
the Koosevelt delegates to the State convention had been named. 
The Washington State case was carried to the Democratic national 
convention at Baltimore, where the Clark delegates elected in exactly 
the same manner as the Taft delegates were elected were seated, in¬ 
stead of the Wilson delegates elected in the same way the Roosevelt 
delegates v^ere elected. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

A contest was filed with the national committee contesting the 
seats of Aaron Bradshaw and William Calvin Chase, the duly 
elected Taft delegates. The election of delegates from the District 
of Columbia was held under the direction and supervision of an 
election board named in the call of the national committee for the 
national convention. The election was held strictly in accordance 
with the terms of the call; a board of judges was appointed for each 
election precinct, who received, counted, announced, and returned 
the ballots to a returning board. This returning board made its 
report to the election board named by the national committee. The 
result of the election was 2,966 votes cast for Bradshaw, 2,964 cast 
for Chase, and 1,848 votes and 1,846 votes cast, respectively, for 
Sidney Bieber and Dr. James R. Wilder, the Roosevelt candidates. 

The notice of contest filed by Mr. Bieber and Dr. Wilder charged 
among other things that no official notice was published in any news¬ 
paper showing the hour and place where ballots would be received 
5—D 


66 


and counted 5 that the only notice ^iven was an unofficial notice pub¬ 
lished less than 24 hours before the time of the primary; that elec¬ 
tions were held in 22 districts instead of 21, contrary to the pro¬ 
visions of llie printed call; that the election hoard failed to perform 
its duty; that maii}^ incapable judges of election were appointed; 
that in many polling places no record Avas kept of the votes cast; 
that many of these judges stuffed the ballot boxes in their charge 
and permitted other persons to do the same; that a number of the 
judges were so much under the influence of liquor that they could 
not perform their duties; that six polling places were arbitrarily 
changed at the last moment; that one of the members of the election 
board was refused the exercise of his right as a member of the elec¬ 
tion board to inspect the registration books kept at the various poll¬ 
ing places; that one of the ballot boxes was corruptly Avithheld until 
all the ballots from the other polling precincts had been counted; 
that tickets were switched and returns AA^ere falsified, and that an 
honest count and a fair return Avould have shoAvn the election of the 
Eoosevelt delegates. 

Absolutely no evidence AA’as presented to the national committee 
to support any of these charges, AAdiile evidence Avas presented show¬ 
ing the election of BradshaAA’ and Chase Avas in all respects in strict 
accordance Avith the terms of the call. Gov. Tdadley, in his motion 
to substitute, included the District of Columbia as one of the dis¬ 
tricts AAdiere delegates for Roosevelt had been actually elected. In 
mew of the fact that no evidence was presented to substantiate the 
Roosevelt charges of fraud and irregularity, and in vieiv of the 
further fact that the case was not appealed by the contestants to 
the committee on credentials, there was nothing for that committee 
and the convention to do but to seat the Taft delegates. Mr. Bieber^s 
motion to s.mt himself failed to receive the support of a single Roose¬ 
velt member of the national committee. 


We hereby certify that the above and foregoing document,- pre¬ 
pared under our direction, is a correct and faithful statement of the 
contests for seats in the Republican national convention of 1912, 
shoAving the character of said contests and the disposition of them 
by the national committee and the committee on credentials of the 
Republican national convention and by the convention itself. 



67 


AVe add, as an appendix, full, true, and correct copies of the reports 
made to the convention by the committee on credentials and also of 
the minority reports. 

A^ictor Rosewater, 

Chairman Republican National Committee. 

Thomas H. Devine, 
Chairman Committee on Credentials. 

AA^e hereby certify that Appendix No. 1 hereto attached, showing 
the vote before the national committee, is in all respects correct. 

WILLIAM Hayward, 

Secretary Republican National Committee. 

Alex. R. Smith, 

Clerk Committee on Credentials. 









•" % 



^ f • » 



r 




I 




« 








t 








^.•> V 


f 


•r« • 





r 


f 





1 

1 


r >^| 


9 


4-■**. 


I 


• 


•f 


kUg 



> 









APPENDICES 


Appendix No. 1. 

Vote in RepuMican national cotnmittee on contests brought before it June 7-15, 

1912. 

' ALABAMA. 




Taft. 

Roose¬ 

velt. 

At large . 

Roll call, unanimous . 

6 

0 

First . 


2 

0 

Second . 

Viva voce . 

2 

0 

Fifth. 


2 

0 

Sixth . 

Withdrawn . 

2 

0 

Ninth. 

Taft, 38; Roosevelt, 15. 

2 

0 





ARIZONA. 

At large. 

Roll call denied; viva voce not unanimous. 

6 

0 

ARKANSAS. 

A f 1 Q ... 

Roll call, unanimous ; Taft, 52 ; Roosevelt, 0 . 

4 

0 

First ...... 

Roll call; Taft, 49 ; Roosevelt, 2 . 

2 

0 

. 

Roll call, unanimous; Taft, 47 ; Rooseveit, 0 . 

2 

0 

Third . 

Roll call, unanimous; Taft, 51; Roosevelt, 0 . 

2 

0 

Fnnrth . 

Roll call, unanimous; Taft, 48; Roosevelt, 0 . 

2 

0 

Fifth . 

Roll call; Taft, 42; Roosevelt, 10 . 

2 

0 

Seventh . 

Roll call, unanimous; Taft, 44; Roosevelt, 0 . 

2 

0 

4 CALIFORNIA. 


Roll call; Taft, 37; Roosevelt, 16 . 

2 

0 






FLORIDA. 


At large. 

Roll call, unanimous; Taft, 44; Roosevelt, 0. 

0 


Viva voce. 

2 


rlo. 

o 


, fin. 

o 





0 

0 

0 

0 


( 69 ) 








































































70 


Vote ill J\ej)iii)iic<iii iKitioiHiJ coinniion contests Itroiiiflit Ix’lorc it June 1—16, 

I'JIl —('ontiiiued. 

(IKOKGIA. 




Taft. 

Roo.'<e- 

velt. 

A t 1^1 rjTP. 


Viva voc^*. 

4 

0 

Firsf. 




" 2 

() 

Second. 




2 

0 

Third. 




2 

0 

Fourth. 




2 

0 

Fifth. 




2 

0 

Sixth. 


L "onsolidited. viva voce. 

■< 

2 

0 

Seventh.• 




2 

0 

Eighth. 




2 

0 

Ninth. 


* 


2 

0 

'Penth. 




2 

0 

Eleventh . 


Viva voce. 

2 

0 

Twelfth. 


_do. 

o 

0 






INDIANA. 


At large. 

I’naninious . 

4 

0 

First. 

Viva voce, unanimous. 

2 

0 

'Phird. 


o 

0 

Fourth. 


o 

0 

Thirteenth. 

Roll call: Taft, .30; Roosevelt, 14. 

o 

6 





KENTUCKY. 


At large . 

Roll call: Taft. 38: Roosevelt, 11. 

4 

First . 

Roll call : TTnanimoiis, Taft 40 ; Rnnspy^lt h 

o 

Second . 

Roll call : Unanimous. Taft, 50 ; Roosevelt 0 

o 

Fourth. 

Withdrawn . 

o 

Seventh . : 

Roll call: Taft. .38; Roosevelt, 1.3.. 

o 

Eighth. 

Roll call: Taft. .35; Roosevelt, 17. 

o 

'Penth. 

Roll call : Unanimous, Taft. 52 : Roosevelt 0 

o 

Eleventh. 

Compromise. Delegation split. Roll call : .33 to 19. 

1 


_ 

\ LOUISIANA. 



\ 


At large . 

Roll call ; Taft .50, Roosevelt 2 . 


First . 

Withdrawn . 

o 

Second . 

. do . 

o 

'Phird . 

Viva voce, unanimous . 

o 

Fourth . 

A'iva voce . 

o 

Fifth . 

. do . 

o 

Sixth . 

Withdrawn . 

o 

Seventh . 


o 






























































































71 


Vote in Repuhiican nationol coftnniittee on rontei^tsi hrouf/Jit before it -hnie l-lo, 

1 !) 12 —Continued. 

MICHIGAN. 




Taft. 

Roose¬ 

velt. 

At large. 

Viva voce. 

6 

0 




MISSISSIPPI. 


At large. 

Viva voce: roll rail denied. 

4 

0 

First. 


o 

0 

Second. 


o 

0 

Fourth. 


2 

0 

Fifth. 

.do. 


0 

Sixth... 


2 

0 

Seventh. 

.do. 

o 

0 

Eighth. 

Viva voce, 1st, 2d, 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th districts 
consolidated; roll call denied. 

1 

2 

1 

0 


MISSOURI. 


At large. 

Viva voee, nnnnimoim. 

0 

First. 


0 

Third. 



Fifth.•.. 


i 

0 1 

Seventh. 


2 1 

Thirteenth. 

.do. 

2 I 

Fourteenth. 

.do. 

2 i 

Sixteenth. 

.do. 

1 

2 1 



I 

I 



NORTH CAROLINA. 


- 

Third 

Viva voce, unanimous. 

2 

0 

Fourth . 

.do. 

2 

0 

Ninth .... 

.do. 

2 

0 





OKLAHOMA. 

T'li i rrl 

Viva voce; roll call not sustained. 

2 

n 





SOUTH CAROLINA. 


'1 

'I iva voce. 

2 

0 



I 














































































72 


Vote in Repuhlican national committee on contests hrought before it June 7-15, 

1912 —Continued. 

TENNESSEE. 




Taft. 

Roose¬ 

velt. 

1 

First. 

Viva voce. 

2 

0 

Second. 

.do. 

2 

0 

Ninth. 

Viva voce; roll call not sustained. 

2 

0 

Tenth. 

Viva voce, unanimous. 

2 

0 





TEXAS. 


At large. 

Viva voce; roll call denied. 

1 ® 

0 

First. 

Viva voce, unanimous. 

2 

0 

Second. 

Viva voce. 

2 

0 

Third. 


0 

2 

Fourth. 

Viva voce; roll call denied. 

2 

0 

Fifth. 


2 

0 

Seventh. 


2 

0 

Eighth. 


2 

0 

Ninth. 


2 

0 

Tenth. 


2 

0 

Fourteenth. 


2 

0 

Fifteenth. 

Viva voce, unanimous. 

0 

2 





VIRGINIA. 


Four delegates at large and the 16 district delegates 
contested were consolidated and decided by a 
viva voce vote. The deiegates were seated for 
Taft. 


WASHINGTON. 


Eight delegates at large and the six district dele¬ 
gates contested were consolidated and hy a viva 
voce vote the delegates were given to Taft. 


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 



At large. 

Viva voce vote. 

O 





u 


i 





































































73 


Appendix No. 2. 

Dates of Taft and Roosevelt conventions in States named. 

ALABAMA, 



Taft delegates. 

Roosevelt delegates. 

Call. 

Convention. 

Call. 

Convention. 

At large. 

Jan. 11. 

Mar. 7, Birming¬ 
ham. 

Feb. 27, Mobile.... 

Feb. 27, Ever¬ 
green. 

May 11, Tuskegee 

Mar. 8,Tuscaloosa 

Mar. 16, Birming¬ 
ham. 

M ar. 30. 

May 11, Birming¬ 
ham. 

May 4, Mobile. 

May 11, Birming¬ 
ham. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

First . 

Jan. 2.'>. 

May 4 (Mobile 
Register). 

No date. 

Second . 

Jan. 23, Mont¬ 
gomery. 

Apr. 6, La Fayette 
Jan. 11, Birming¬ 
ham. 

Feb. 15. 

Fifth. 

.do. 

Sixth . 

.do. 

Ninth. 

No date (Feb. 15 
claimed). 




FLORIDA. 


At large. 

Fir.«t. 

Dec. 16, Jackson¬ 
ville. 

.do. 

Feb. 6, Palatka. 

Apr. 15. 

Mar. 18. 

May 18, Jackson¬ 
ville. 

Apr. 30, Tampa. 
May 18, Jackson, 
ville. 

Second . 

.do. 

.do. 

Apr. 15. 

Third .. 

.do. 

.do. 








GEORGIA. 


A f. larirft . 

Jan.2. 

Feb. 14, Atlanta... 

Apr. 17. 

May 17, Atlanta. 


Jan.12. 

Feb. 12, Savannah 

Apr. 18. 

May 18, Savannah. 


Feb. 22, Thomas- 

Mar. 26, Bain- 

Apr. 18. 

May 18, Thomas- 


ville. 

bridge. 


ville. 

Third . 

Jan. 16, Monte- 

Feb. 24, Americus 

Apr. 17. 

May 18, Americus. 


zuma. 




Jan. 22, Columbus 

Feb. 23, West 

Apr. 17. 

May 18, La Grange. 


Point. 


Fifth . 

Jan.2. 

Feb. 12, Atlanta... 

.\pr. 16 . 

May 18, Atlanta. 

Y t. h. 

Mar. 27, Griffin. 

May 1, Macon. 

Apr. 17, Fayette- 

May 18, Macon. 




ville. 



Feb. 24. 

Apr. 4, Rome. 

Apr. 17. 

May 18, Rome. 


Jan.12. 

Feb. 20, Athens ... 

Apr. 17. 

May 18, Athens. 


Jan. 3. 

Feb. 12, Gaines- 

Apr. 18. 

May 18, Ellijay. 



ville. 




Jan.31. 

Mar. 2, Augusta... 

Apr. 17. 

May 18, Augusta. 


•Tan 18... 

Feb. 27, Waycross 

Apr. 18. 

May 18, Waycross. 

Twelfth 2. 

Jan. 18, Atlanta.... 

Mar. 2, Eastman... 

Apr. 18. 

May 18, Dublin. 


1 District call by State central committee of .Tan. 18 ratified by district committee 
Feb. 26. 

2 District call of State central committee. 




























































































74 


Dateii of Taft and Roosevelt eonventions in Elates named —Contiiuied. 

VIRGINIA. 



Taft delegates. 

Roosevelt delegates. 

Call. 

Convention. 

Call. 

Convention. 

At large. 

Jan.6. 

Mar. 12, Roanoke 

Apr. 10. 

May 16, Richmond. 

First . 

Jan. 22, Newport 

Feb. 27, Cape 

Apr. 5, Newport 

May 6, Newport 


News. 

Charles. 

News. 

News. 

Third. 

Not stated. 

Feb. 19, South 

No date .. 

May 16 , R i c h - 



Richmond. 


mond. 

Fourth. 

Not stated. 

Mar. 11, Farm- 

No date. 

No date. 



ville. 


Fifth. 

Jan. 6, Roanoke 

Mar. 9, Rocky 

No date . 

May 13, Danville. 


(uninstructed). 

Mount. 


Sixth. 

Not stated. 

Mar. Roanoke 

do . 

No date 

Eighth . 

Jan. 10, Alexan- 

Feb. 12, Alexan- 

Apr. 15, Alexan- 

May 16, Rich- 


dria. 

dria. 

dia. 

mond. 

Tenth. 

Not stated. 

Not stated. 

Apr.l2, Covington 

May 15, Iron Gate. 








































Appendix No. 3. 


STATEMENT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON 
CREDENTIALS OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CON¬ 
VENTION AND THE REPORTS OF THE MINORITY. 

MAJORITY REPORT. 

The following stateinent purporting to have been signed by certain 
members of the committee on credentials of the Republican national 
convention appeared this morning in the Chicago Tribune: 

ROOSEVELT CREDENTIALS COMMITTEEMEN STATE THEIR CASE IN MINORITY REPORT. 

This eonveiitioii was called to contain 1,078 delegates. Of this one-qiiarter 
were to come from States and Territories which have no part in Republican 
affairs, cast no Republican vote, and are practically destitute of Republican 
voters. Such delegates are always controlled by Federal olliceholders or others . 
interested in the management of Federal office. As they live by politics, they 
form an efficient political machine. 

The combination between these and one-(piarter of the delegates from the 
Republican States will form a majority of the convention. In other words, 
one-third of the representative Republican States can, by manipulation, dictate 
to two-thirds of the Republican representatives. 

This year such a coalition was attempted, but a majority of the convention 
was not obtainable until members of the national committee, who have been 
repudiated by their own States, seated a sufficient number of contested dele¬ 
gates to give a majority on the temporary roll call. 

At the organization of the convention the chairman of the national com¬ 
mittee, contrary to good parliamentary law and good morals, insisted on count¬ 
ing the ballots of these contested delegates on the preliminary roll call, which 
elected the temporary chairman. T-pon the motion to exclude these contested 
delegates from participation in the deliberation of the convention uix)n those 
contested, the temporary chairman ruled that they should sit upon their own 
contests. 

A committee upon credentials was then appointed, upon which the contested 
delegates were represented and seated. 

In the committee on credentials a coalition was formed of the contested 
delegates and members of the national committee and a minority of the repre¬ 
sentatives of the Republican States. 

This coalition formed a suhstantial majority of the committee. It proposed 
to prevent the hearing of all of the testimony by limiting the contestants on 
delegates at large to 10 minutes and on district delegates to 5 minutes in which 
to jiresent their cases, and did not agree to a decent amount of time foi the 
hearing until a number of the unorganized members left the room in disgust. 

During the hearing the members of the national committee, who were in fact 
sitting upon their own cases, acted as attorneys for the seated delegates, intei- 
fered with an orderly i)rocedure, and bullied the witnesses of the contestants. 


76 


The hearing, if held in public, would have aroused the scorn of all spectators, 
and for this reason the public were excluded. 

The coalition in the committee is bringing in reports faster than they can be 
prepared, making it evident that the reports have been prepared beforehand 
and merely adopted as a formality. No time is furnished to the unorganized 
delegates to consider their cases or prepare to present them to the convention. 

It is therefore plain that if these contested delegates are seated they will not 
only create a majority of which less than one-half represent Republican States, 
but that this majority will also be composed of delegates improperly seated in 
violation of good parliamentary law and common morals. 

It is also plain that this is not accomplished by mere partisanship, but it is 
the result of a comprehensive plan prepared in advance and deliberately carried 
out to control the Republican convention against the Republican voters. 


Robert R. McCormick, Illinois. 
Hugh T. Halbert, Minnesota. 
Clency St. Clair, Idaho. 

R. A. Harris, Kansas. 

D. J. Norton, Oklahoma. 

A. V. Swift, Oregon. 

J. M. Libby, Maine. 


Jesse A. Tolerton, Missouri. 

Lex N. Mitchell, Pennsylvania, by 
William P. Young, proxy. 

Francis J. Heney, California. 

S. X. Way, South Dakota. 

Harry Shaw, West Virginia. 

H. E. Sackett, Nebraska. 


This statement having been called to the attention of the chairman 
of the committee on credentials^ he laid it before the committee on 
credentials at its meeting this morning, whereupon a motion was 
made and carried for the appointment of a committee of six to report 
as to the facts and said committee reported as follows: 

During the discussion on the adoption of the motion to appoint 
this committee, Mr. Mitchell, of Pennsylvania, whose name appears 
attached to the printed statement, said that he did not sign it or 
authorize anyone to sign it for him, and that plenty of time had 
been given for the hearing of the cases. 

Mr. Jesse A. Tolerton, of Missouri, whose name also appears at¬ 
tached to the statement, also stated that he did not sign it. One 
member who had signed the statement indicated by remarks during 
the discussion that he had not fully understood the contents of the 
statement or he would not have signed it. Mr. John J. Sullivan of 
Ohio, the designated floor leader of the Eoosevelt people, stated that 
aJthough the statement was presented to him, he had declined to sign 

Robert R. McCormick, of Illinois, who admitted that he wrote the 
statement was not present at the meetings of the committee during 
the consideration of cases for more than two hours in all although 
the committee was in continuous session at one time for over 36 
hours and sat altogether over 40 hours, equivalent to five 8-hour 


77 


Francis J. Heney, of California, who signed the statement, bolted 
the committee, shouting ‘‘Follow me to the Florentine room,’’ before 
the rules of the committee were adopted and did not return except 
for a few minutes the second day of the meeting, when he attempted 
to create confusion and delay the proceedings. He did not hear any 
of the contests pending before the committee for a single moment; 
and the roll calls will show that many of those who signed this state¬ 
ment and bolted with Mr. Heney, although they did not return, were 
present only a comparatively short portion of the time that the cases 
were being heard. 

The statement as a whole in its insinuations of combination, of 
unworthy motive, in its recital of alleged facts, is grossly and ma¬ 
liciously untrue. It was intended to convey the impression that the 
time for hearing cases was so limited as to prevent their being prop^ 
erly presented to the committee. The untruthfulness of this state¬ 
ment is clearly shown by the records of the committee aiid the news¬ 
paper reports of its deliberations. Not only did the rules make 
liberal provision for time in presenting cases, but in every instance 
where the parties presenting the cases, or any member of the com¬ 
mittee, asked for an extension of time, it was granted. 

The very first case examined by the committee, the much-discussed 
ninth Alabama case, was considered for over three hours, and the 
consideration closed by unanimous consent of everyone present. The 
Indiana case, although it had been unanimously decided by the 
national committee, was considered for over five hours and not closed 
until every one had agreed to its conclusion. The Arkansas case 
and all other cases in their order were given all the time requested 
by the members of the committee, and in no instance during the 
whole session of the committee was any contestant or contestee pre¬ 
vented from arguing or presenting evidence as long as any member 
of the committee desired him to do so. 

The foregoing statement alleges that there was a combination be¬ 
tween certain members of the committee on credentials and mem¬ 
bers of the national committee and others, under which these mem¬ 
bers of the committee on credentials sustained decisions of the na¬ 
tional committee without regard to their merit. Such a statement is 
not only absolutely untrue, but the parties who signed it must have 
known that it was untrue; and while the undersigned do not desire 
to impugn the motives of any member on the committee, we desire 
to call attention to the fact that, with one exception, those who 
signed this statement and those who generally voted with them voted 


78 


ill every single case to seat delegates known to be for Mr. Roosevelt, 
including a nuinber of cases on which the action of the national 
committee had been unanimous against such delegates. 

In regard to the assertion that reports were prepared in advance of 
the action of the committee on credentials, no one of the gentlemen 
who makes this statement will state of his own personal knowledge 
that any reports were thus made. The convention having adjourned 
from time to time because of the slow progress being made by the 
committee on credentials, partial reports were made from time to 
time in order to facilitate the business of the convention, all of which 
reports were prepared after the cases had been acted upon by the 
committee. 

The statement that the proceedings of the committee were not 
given full publicity is unqualifiedly and notoriously false. The five 
press associations of the country were represented at all times during 
the meetings and hearings of the committee, and they reported the 
^proceedings at length. 

As to the merits of these contested cases upon which the committee 
passed it should be remembered that the national committee sat for 
15 days hearing evidence and argument upon them. Out of a total 
membership of 53 only 13 members of that committee objected to 
the findings and decisions and they only with regard to a part of the 
cases, the action of the committee having been unanimous with re¬ 
gard to a majority of them. The convention declined, by a sub¬ 
stantial majority, to reverse the action of the national committee, 
and it referred the contested cases to the committee on credentials. 

hen our committee met, mlevS were adopted by unanimous vote. 
No one desiring to make complaint as to the seating of any delegate 
was prevented from presenting his case. The committee even con¬ 
sidered cases which had been decided by a unanimous vote of the 
national committee, notably the Indiana case. 

The committee on credentials of the Republican national conven¬ 
tion consists of 53 members. The committee in every case sustained 
the decision of the national committee, and in no case by majorities 
of less than two-thirds. This statement of facts, indorsed by 40 
members of the committee, who listened patiently through all-day 
and all-night sessions to evidence and argument in order to be able 
to judge cases intelligently and pass upon them honestly, should be a 
sufficient answer to the reckless, unwarranted, and untruthful asser¬ 
tions contained in the statement signed by 11 members of the com¬ 
mittee, two of whom did not attend sessions of the committee, did 


79 


not hear any of the evidence presented, and nearly all of whom indi¬ 
cated their bias by voting in every case for the delegates known to 
be favorable to Mr. Roosevelt, including numerous cases in which 
the action of the national committee had been unanimous for the 
Taft delegates. 

[The above report was prepared by a subcommittee appointed by 
the committee on credentials, the report was adopted by the full 
committee and made part of its report to the convention. The sub¬ 
committee was composed of J. A. Hemenway, of Indiana; Frank 
M . Mondell, of \\ yoming; Fred W. Estabrook, of New Hampshire; 
George R. Malby, of New York; and Henry Blun, jr., of Georgia.] 


MAJORITY REPORT. 

Ninth Alabama. 

The committee on credentials respectfully presents to the conven¬ 
tion this report and recommends the seating of J. Rivers Carter, of 
Jefferson County, and James D. Sloan, of Blount County, as dele¬ 
gates from the ninth congressional district of Alabama, and Thomas 
J. Kennamer and J. O. Diffay, both of Jefferson County, State of 
Alabama, ninth congressional district, as alternates from the said 
district. 

Your committee begs leave to state that it heard a full presenta¬ 
tion of the evidence and exhaustive arguments of those representing 
the delegates and alternates whose seating we recommend as well as 
the adversary parties, at the close of which your committee finds the 
following facts: 

On February 15, 1912, 30 i)ersons claiming to be members of the 
managing or executive committee of the ninth congressional district 
met for the purt>ose of issuing a call for a district convention. The 
full quota of the committee was 29. Of these 30 persons so assem¬ 
bled the right of 23 to sit upon the committee is not questioned. 
The right of 7 to sit upon that committee was denied. 

AVhen the committee met one of those, Mr. 0. R. Hundley, whose 
right to a seat upon the committee was disputed, attempted to make 
a motion, whereupon a member whose right to sit is not questioned 
challenged the right of Hundley to participate in the deliberations 
of the committee. The chairman of the committee being absent, the 
secretary thereof attenqited to preside in his place and denied the 
right of any member to question the right of said Hundley to partici- 


80 


pate and refused to hear any objection to the roll as prepared by 
himself. 

Thereupon no chairman having been chosen, Mr. A. C. Birch was 
placed in nomination. The individual who had usurped the chair 
refused to recognize the nomination; thereupon the member of the 
committee who had named Mr. Birch presented to the meeting the 
question of the election of Mr. Birch. Fifteen of those present voted 
for Mr. Birch. The remaining 15, only 14 of whom could possibly 
have been members of the committee, refused to recognize Mr. Birch, 
and thereupon the two parties took different positions in the hall and 
held two meetings. The meeting presided over by Mr. Birch pro¬ 
ceeded in a regular way to call a district convention for the purpose 
of electing delegates and alternates to the national convention, and 
it is this convention so presided over by Mr. Birch which sends the 
delegation now holding their seats in this convention under the 
approval of the national committee. The call issued by this district 
convention being fundamental of subsequent proceedings and it ap¬ 
pearing that the regularity of the call depended upon the right of the 
different individuals to a seat upon the district committee, careful 
inquiiy was made by this committee into the credentials of each one 
of the seven whose right to a seat upon the committee was disputed. 
Of those participating in the Birch or Taft committee meeting the 
right of two is questioned, to wit: W. M. Latham and R. H. Hardin. 
It was asserted that not W. M. Latham but a James Latham, his 
brother, was the regularly elected member of the committee. 

The evidence, however, was clear and vastly preponderating that 
AV. M. Latham had not only been elected to the committee but had 
repeatedly participated in person and by proxy at meetings thereof 
and had repeatedly received notices from the chairman of its meet¬ 
ings. It was further made to appear that representatives of the 
Roosevelt adherents had solicited his proxy for the committee meet¬ 
ing of February 15, 1912. As to R. H. Hardin, it was claimed that 
he had resigned from the committee, /'he proof shows without ques¬ 
tion that in anticipation of his probable absence upon the day of the 
committee meeting he had prepared a resignation which he delivered 
to one Clayton, to be held by him and delivered to the committee 
only in the event that he, Hardin, should be absent from the com¬ 
mittee meeting. Prior to the day of the committee meeting and 
"when it became evident that he would be able to be present thereat, 
Hardin requested Clayton to return to him the resignation which he 
had written out. Clayton, however, refused to do so and delivered 


81 


the same to the chairman of the committee, who thereupon ap¬ 
pointed another individual in place of said Hardin. This was done 
before the committee to which the resignation was addressed had met^ 
and the resignation was recalled before the committee had acted 
upon it. This committee, therefore, finds as a matter of fact and aa 
a conclusion of law that said resignation having been recalled before 
it was accepted by the committee never took effect, and therefore, 
upon February 15, 1912, Ilardin was unquestionably entitled to 
act as a member of the district committee. 

Tlie.^e two members, Latham and Ilardin, gave to the Birch or 
Taft committee meeting a clear majority of the entire committee. 

Of those who participated in the Koosevelt committee the right of 
five to ."it as members of the committee is challeuged, to wit: O. R. 
Hundley, J. W. Davidson, J. F. Shaddick, lb S. Culwell, and J. ML 
Clayton. 

As to Clayton, it was shown by numerous and unquestioned affi¬ 
davits that he was at said time and is now a nonresident of the ninth 
district,-and we find, therefore, that he lost his membership upon the 
committee upon his removal from the district. Culwell is the indi¬ 
vidual who had been substituted for Hardin and, as the resignation 
of Hardin had not been accepted by the committee, and Hardin 
himself was present, it follows that Culwell was not entitled to meirL- 
bership. 

The right of the remaining three, Hundley, Davidson, and Shad'- 
dick, to sit upon the committee is predicated upon a pretended ap¬ 
pointment by the absent chairman of the committee and the right 
to make such appointment is based upon a pretended resolution 
claimed to have been pas.sed at the district convention in 1910, au¬ 
thorizing the chairman of the committee to fill vacancies. The con¬ 
testants have been unable to produce any minutes .showing the adop¬ 
tion of such a resolution. 

Your committee had before it affidavits of 12 reputable citizens 
who were members of the convention that no such resolution was 
ever adopted. The rasolution itself appears written in pencil upon 
one .side of a small sheet of paper in the handwriting of the secre¬ 
tary of the committee, who is the same individual who attempted to> 
l)re."ide at the meeting of February 15, 1912. That portion of the- 
resolution which pretends to give to the chairman the authority tO’ 
fill vacancies, gives evidence of having been written at a different 
time and with a different pencil than that used in writing the body 
of the re.solution, and your committee finds that there is plain evi- 

6-D 


82 


ilence of the alteration of said resolution, and that no resolution giv- 
ing to the cdiairinan authority to fill vacancies ni)on the coinniittee 
was ever ])assed, as was claimed, by the district ccjiivention ol 1910. 
Your conimittee therefore linds that n])on February 15, 1912, there 
were 15 legal ineinbers of the coinniittee particiiiating in the Birch 
or Taft meeting and 10 legally accredited members of the com- 
inittee participating in the Roosevelt meeting of the committee. 

'The 15 members of the committee so presided over by Ml. Birch 
^iroceeded in a regular and legal manner to call a district convention, 
to be held at Birmingham, Ala., on March 1(5, 1912, for the election 
of delegates and alternates to this convention. Due notice was given 
cind all steps taken in full com})liance Avitli the law and the require¬ 
ments of the national committee. Four counties in the district in 
res})onse to this call sent delegates to the convention which was held 
at the time and place fixed, at Birmingham, and the delegates now 
seated were elected at that convention. These county organizations, 
which have been recognized and unchallenged for 12 years, selected 
not only delegates to the district convention of the ninth district, but 
selected in the same manner delegates to a State convention which 
named the delegates at large from the State of Alabama to this na¬ 
tional convention. A contest was filed before the national committee 
against the delegates at large so selected as aforesaid. The national 
committee, having heard the same, voted unanimously not to sup¬ 
port said contest, thus recognizing the authority of the county or¬ 
ganizations of the ninth district Avith regard to their action in select¬ 
ing delegates to the State convention. No appeal from that finding 
■of the national committee has been presented to this conimittee. We 
ac'cept this, therefore, as a recognition of the validity of the Repub¬ 
lican organizations in counties of the ninth district. 

AT therefore find that J. Rivers Carter, of Jefferson County, and 
James B. Sloan, of Blount County, are the regularly and duly elected 
Jelegates from the ninth congressional district of Alabama, and 
Thomas J. Kennamer and J. C. Diff’ay, both of Jefferson County, are 
the regularly and duly elected alternates to this convention from the 
ninth congressional district of Alabama. 


MINORITY REPORT. 

We, the undersigned members of the committee on credentials 
of the Repulilican national conimittee, hereby submit the folhuv- 
ing rei)ort: 


(1) e protest against the action of the following nieinbers of 
the committee in sitting upon and participating in the actions of 
the committee; Mr. J. C. Adams, of Arizona; Mr. C. A. AVarnken, 
of Texas; and Mr. AV. T. Dovell, of AAhishington, for the reason 
that each of these men was elected by entire delegations whose seats 
are contested. 

(2) A^ e protest against the action of the following men, Air. J. 
C. Adams, of Arizona; Mr. C. A. AVarnken, of Texas; and Air. AV. 
T. Dovell, of AA'ashington, from participating in and voting upon 
the questions in any of the contests on the ground that they are 
in effect sitting as judges in their own cases. 

(3) AVe protest against Air. Thomas II. Devine, of Colorado; 
Air. Fred AV. Estabrook, of New Hampshire; Air. Henry Blun, jr., 
of Georgia; Air. L. B. Aloseley, of Alississippi; and Air. L. P. Shack¬ 
leford, of Alaska, sitting as members of this committee, for the 
reasons that they were members of the national committee and par¬ 
ticipated in its'deliberations and actions. 

(4) AVe find that the following persons reported upon by the 
majority of members of this committee are not entitled to seats in 
this convention and should not be placed upon its permanent roll: 

ALABAMA. 

\iiith district. —Delepites; .Tames B. Sloan, .T. Uivers Carter. Alternates: 
Thomas .7. Kennanier. .7. (). 7>it¥a.v. 

(5) And we further report that in place of the said persons the 
following persons were duly elected and are legally entitled to seats 
in this convention and should be seated and accredited to their re¬ 
spective State and district as follows: 

ALABAMA. 

\iiith district .— Delej^ates: .Tiidfjo Ost-ar It. TTimdley, Ceor^v II. I.ewis. 

alaba:ma. 

To ChairA iAX of Republican National Convention, 

Chicago, 111. 

Gentleaien: The undersigned memhers of the committee on 
credentials beg leave to dissent from the report of the majority of 
the members of this committee, and report in lieu thereof the fol¬ 
lowing as to the delegates and alternates from the ninth congres¬ 
sional district of Alabama : 


84 


AVe report that Oscar R. Hundley and G. R. Lewis, delegates, 
and W. H. Lewis and P. II. Clark, alternates, are entitled to seats 
in this convention, and that J. R. Carter and J. B. Sloan, who have 
been formally seated as delegates, and T. J. Kennemer and J. 0. 
Diffay, who have also been seated as alternate delegates in this con¬ 
vention from said ninth congressional district of Alabama by the 
action of the national committee, are not entitled to seats in this 
convention. 

AA"e base our reasons for this report upon the following facts, 
amply sustained by the official records and ample testimony of 
witnesses presented before this committee:. 

The said Oscar R. Ilundley and G. R. Lewis and W. H. Lewis 
and P. H. Clark were elected as delegates and alternates by a con¬ 
vention held on a call made by the regular Republican district com¬ 
mittee of the ninth congressional district of Alabama, the regular¬ 
ity of which committee has not been questioned since its election 
by the Republican district convention of said ninth district on the 
11th day of July, 1910, until the bolt therefrom by a minority of 
said committee. 

Said district committee held a regular session in the city of Bir¬ 
mingham on the 15th day of February, 1912, in which the dele¬ 
gates formally seated by this convention were present in person and 
participated. At that meeting of said committee, the total member¬ 
ship of which was 29, and, including the chairman and secretary, 
31 members in all, there were present answering to the roll call 
26 members in person and 2 by proxy, making 28 members in all. 
The delegates formally seated in this convention by the national 
committee were elected by a convention called by a bolting minor¬ 
ity of said committee, composed of 12 members thereof, who left 
the committee, composed of the remaining 18 members, and held 
a separate convention in the rear of the same hall. 

The 18 remaining members of the committee, and a majority 
and quorum thereof, called a convention at which were elected the 
aforesaid delegates and alternates, to wit, Oscar R. Hundley and 
G. R. Lewis and AAk H. Lewis and P. H. Clark. The delegates and 
alternates heretofore given seats in this convention, and who were 
elected as the result of the action of the said bolting minority of 
said district committee, are illegal and not entitled to sit in this 
convention, for the following reasons: 

1. At the time of their bolt they did not have a majority or 


85 

quorum of the committee upon which to base any legal or regular 
action. 

2. They endeavored after the bolt to secure a majority of the 
committee by adding thereto the name of one man, AV. M. Latham, 
who, it was shown by the records of said committee at every meet¬ 
ing since it was formed in 1910 and by the records of the district 
convention when the committee was formed in 1910, to have never 
been a member of said committee and never to have participated 
therein. 

3. They further endeavored to secure a quorum of said commit¬ 
tee, after their said bolt, by adding thereto the name of one Har¬ 
vey Hardin, who was shown to have resigned from said committee 
on the 9th day of February, 1912, and whose place was filled by the 
chairman of said committee on the 14th day of February, 1912, 
said action of said chairman being duly reported to said committee 
and concurred in by said committee. The authority of the chair¬ 
man for making all appointments in the committee to fill vacancies 
was amply and incontrovertibly sustained by the records of the 
district convention of July 11, 1910, and by the action of the com¬ 
mittee on June 22, 1911. Even by these methods they failed to 
get a majority of the committee upon which to base their bolt. 

4. The convention claimed to have been held by the bolting mi¬ 
nority of the committee was held without the notice required by 
the rules of the national committee, when it called this convention. 

Based upon these facts we offer as a substitute for the majority 
report of the committee on credentials the following resolution: 

Resolved, That Oscar R. Hundley and G. R. Lewis, delegates, and W. H. 
Lewis and P. H. Clark, alternates, are entitled to their seats upon the floor of 
this convention. 

Respectfully submitted. 

John J. Sullivan, Ohio; John Boyd Avis; Lex N. 
Mitchell, Pennsylvania; Hugh T. Halbert, Min¬ 
nesota; Robert R. McCormick, Illinois, on Ala¬ 
bama contest; AV. S. Lauder, North Dakota; J. 
AI. Landon, Kansas; Charles H. Cowles, North 
Carolina; Francis J. Heney, California; Harry 
Shaw (AA. P. H.), West ATrginia; H. E. Sackett, 
Nebraska; S. X. AA^ay; J. AL Libby, Maine; Dan 
Norton, Oklahoma; Jesse A. Tolerton, Missouri. 


86 


MAJORITY REPORT. 

DELEGATES AT LARGE FROM ARIZONA. 

The executive couiiiiittee of the Arizona State couinhttee on ^lay 
1 issued a call for a State convention to be held at Tucson on the 
3d day of June. By the terms of the call, there being no ^^tate presi¬ 
dential primary law, the various county committees were authorized 
to determine in what manner the delegates to the State convention 
should be elected, namely, whether by appointment by the county 
committees, or by direct primary election, or by a primary election 
of delegates to a county convention which should select delegates to 
the State convention. The county committees were required to 
meet on the 15th day of May to make this determination, and the 
appointment or election of delegates was to be made on the 25th 
day of May. Nearly all of the counties determined according to 
former practice upon the appointment of delegates by the county 
committee. Two counties, Pinal and Graham, held primaries and 
elected delegates to county conventions. It was in dispute whether 
the majority of the committee in Maricopa County determined 
upon one course or the other. At the assembling of the county com¬ 
mittee in that county on the 15th day of May, the chairman, a 
Roosevelt man, without Avaiting for a roll call or for any motion, 
appointed three Roosevelt men to constitute a committee on cre¬ 
dentials. A dispute arose as to Avhether or not proxies from absent 
committeemen should he received. • If they were received, tho.se 
favoring appointment of delegates to the State convention would 
be in the majority, and if proxies were rejected, those favoring a 
primary Avould be in a majority. 

It had been the uniform practice to receive proxies of committee¬ 
men who were unable to attend, but in this instance it was sought 
to reject proxies on the ground which we deem wholly untenable, 
that a proxy to be valid must be certified by the county chairman 
and secretary, Jhe result, in effect, Avas that two meetings were 
held on May 15, the one following the other, by one of Avhich a call 
Avas issued signed by the chairman for a primary to elect delegates 
to a county convention, Avhich should select delegates to the State 
convention, and by the other a call Avas issued signed by the sec¬ 
retary of the county committee and a pro tempore chairman for 
a meeting of the county committee to select delegates to the State 
convention. Tavo sets of delegates to the State conA^ention Avere 
thus elected. A variety of contests Avas set up in other counties to 


slU'li an extent that a minority only of the delegates entitled to sit 
in the convention was nncontested. The chairman of the State- 
central committee, learning of this situation, instead of personally 
making up the temporary roll for the convention, as had been the 
practice, called a meeting of the executive committee to he'held at 
Tucson on the morning of June 1, two days before the date set for 
liolding the convention. Notice was given by mail and wire to all 
county chairmen and all |)ersons claiming to have been ele(*ted 
delegates to ])resent credentials to the State executive committee at 
that time and place. The notice was also given through the ucavs- 
papers, and the contestants have admitted full knowledge of the 
meeting of the committee to make up the temporary roll. The- 
committee was in attendance and ])repared to receive credentials 
and hear contests from June 1, 10 o’clock, to the assembling of the 
convention on June 8. Two sets of credentials Avere received from 
Cochise County and both delegations Avere seated, Avith one-half 
AX)te each. No other contests Avere i)resented, and it Avas conceded 
that the contests in other counties, except Maricopa, Avere Avithout 
merit. Credentials Avere-presented to the State executive committee 
from all the counties, and the tem})orarv roll of delegates Avas made 
u[) from the credentials as ])resented. 

The State convention assenihled on June 8 at the ])lace designated 
in the original call and Avas called to order by the chairman of the 
State central committee. The call Avas read by the secretary, and 
the chairman made a full statement of the circumstances under 
AAdiich the temporary roll had been made up. The secretary then 
read the temporary roll. The chairman then called for nominations 
for tem])orary chairman, and J. J. Keddick, Avhose seat Avas not in 
contest, Avas nominated by an uncontested delegate. At this ])oint 
objection Avas made by a person Avhose name Avas not on the tem¬ 
porary roll, Avho stated that he did not recognize the validity of the 
roll. A point of order Avas raised and sustained, that this person 
Avas not a member of the convention. The chairman then asked 
if there Avere any other nominations, and none other being made^ 
he ])ut the question, and declared J. J. Reddick elected, and Mr. 
Reddick took his position as chairman. 

At about this time a number of persons, including about 17 
Avhose names Avere on the tem])orary roll, rushed to the right-hand 
side of the hall, one of their numl)er mounted the platform, and 
after 15 or 20 minutes of noise and confusion tliey left the hall and 
did not return. This contest is the result of the proceedings so con- 


88 


ducted during tliat space of time. It is contended that a valid con¬ 
vention was held in this manner, and that the delegation headed 
b}" Dwight B. Heard was elected. A record of this so-called con¬ 
vention was presented to us, showing the appointment and report 
•of committees and the election of delegates to this convention. It 
was conceded that these reports, including that of the committee 
on credentials, were prepared in advance, that the committees did 
not retire, and that the reports were signed without change. 

It was conceded that the credentials of the contesting delegates 
from INIaricopa County were not presented to the convention pre¬ 
sided over by Mr. Reddick, or to the committee on credentials ap¬ 
pointed by that convention. 

The convention presided over by Mr. J. J. Reddick remained in 
the hall and in session for at least two hours and a half. Out of 
the 93 delegates entitled to sit in the convention as shown upon 
the temporary roll, 60 remained in the convention after the bolt, 
•and also the 16 from Cochise County, entitled to a half vote each. 
The usual committees were appointed, and a recess taken to await 
tlieir reports, which were received and adopted by the convention. 
The temporary roll was accepted and made the permanent roll of 
the convention. The temporary organization of the convention was 
made the permanent organization, a number of speeches were 
made by delegates, a vote of thanks passed to the citizens of Tuc¬ 
son, who had arranged for the entertainment and reception of this 
first Republican convention in the new State, and adjournment had 
in regular order. 

We are of opinion and report that the convention so held was 
the only regular and legal convention held within the State of Ari- 
■zona, and that the delegates and alternates elected by it are entitled 
to seats in this national convention, namely: 

.7. L. riiibbell. Robert E. Morrison. James T. Williams, jr., Pli. Freiuleiithal, 
T>r. F. T. Wright, J. C. Adams. Alternates: W. H. Clark, alternate for J. E. 
TTubbell: J. J. Reddick, alternate for Robert E. Morrison; II. Vance Clyiner, 
alternate for James T. Williams, jr.: W. D. Fisk, alternate for I‘h. Freiiden- 
tbal; Allen T. Bird, alternate for Dr. F. T. Wright; Isaac T. Stoddard, alter- 
mate for .T. C. Adams. 


MINORITY REPORT. 

AVe, the undersigned members of the committee on credentials 
of the Republican national committee, hereby submit the following 
report: 




89 


(1) We protest against the action of the following members of 
the committee in sitting upon and participating in the actions of 
the committee, Mr. J. C. Adams, of Arizona, Mr. C. A. Warnken, 
■of Texas, and Mr. W. T. Dovell, of Washington, for the reason that 
€ach of these men was elected by entire delegations whose seats are 
€ontested. 

(2) We protest against the action of the following men, Mr. J. 
C. Adams, of Arizona, Mr. C. A. Warnken, of Texas, and Mr. W. T. 
Dovell, of Washington, from participating in and voting upon the 
•questions in any of the contests on the ground that they are in 
•effect sitting as judges in their own cases. 

(3) AVe protest against Air. Thomas II. Devine, of Colorado, Air. 
Fred AA^. Estabrook, of New Hampshire, Air. Henry Blun, jr., of 
Georgia, Air. L. B. Aloseley, of Alississippi, and Air. L. P. Shackel¬ 
ford, of Alaska, sitting as members of this committee, for the rea¬ 
sons that they were members of the national committee and par¬ 
ticipated in its deliberations and actions. 

(4) AA"e find that the following persons reported upon by the 
majority of members of this committee are not entitled to seats in 
this convention and should not be placed upon its permanent roll: 

ARIZONA. 

.4/ /rt/Y/c—Dele;?ates: ,7. Tj. Ilubbell, J. T. Williams, jr.. Pli. Freiidentbal, 
Hobert E. Morrison, F. T. Wri,i;bt, J. C. Adams. Alternates: W. H. Clark, 
J. .7. Reddick. Allen T. Bird. W. 7). Idsk, 7. T. Stoddard, 77. W. Cl.vmer. 

(3) And we further report that in place of the said persons the 
following persons were duly elected and are legally entitled to seats 
in this convention and should be seated and accredited to their re¬ 
spective States and districts, as follows: 

ARIZONA. 

At larf/c. —Delegates: 14^vight 77. 77eard. E. S. Clark, John C. Greenway. Ben 
F. Daniels, Tlios. D. Molloy, John Mc7v. Redmond, and their alternates. 

AAk S. Lauder. Harry Shaw, AVest Ahrg-inia. 

Robert R. AIcCormiciv. Hugh T. Halbert, Alinnesota. 

Ci.ENCY St. C1.AIR. -L AI. Libby, Alaine. 

.John Boyd Avis. John J. Sullivan, Ohio. 

D. J. Norton. 




00 


MAJORITY REPORT. 

FIFTH ARKANSAS DISTRICT. 

The eoininittee on credentials votes to seat N. Ih lUirrow and 
S. A. Jones and their alternates from the fifth congressional district 
of Arkansas. When the contest from the fifth Arkansas congre.ssionaI 
district was heard before the national committee, the ])ro])osition to 
give the two contestants of each ])arty a half of a vote eaidi received 
the snpjiort of only 10 committeemen. After that proposition was 
defeated, there was a unanimous vote to ])lace N. !>. Burrow an<l 
S. A. Jones on the temporary roll of the convention. 

This contest was apjiealed to the committee and N. B. ITirrow and 
S. A. Jones, whose seats were contested, appeared in person and hy 
attorney before the credentials committee and by witnesses, allidavil.s, 
and documents e.stablished the following facts: 

In 1908 a contest between two divisions of the Republicans of the 
fifth Arkansas congressional district was carried before the Repub¬ 
lican national committee. These factions Avere named after their 
leaders, “the Bratton faction” and “the Redding faction.” The 
national committee, after hearing the testimony in this contest, 
seated the Bratton faction by a unanimous vote. The other faction 
dropped their contest. Accepting the finality of this decision by the 
national committee, the Redding faiJion ])ractically ceased to 
})erform any of its regular functions and did not hold any other 
meeting. 

The Bratton faction after this decision liecame the undisputed 
Reiaiblican organization in the fifth district and is uoav maintaining 
an active and continuous organization. It nominated a candidate 
for Congress in 1908 who received a largely iiuT-eased vote; it held a 
convention in 1910 and nominated a candidate for Congress and 
elected a new congressional committee. This committee in 19T2 
issued a call for a congressional convention to be held in Little Rock 
on May the 6th, in strict conformity with the requirements of the 
call of the Republican national committee. The evidence shows that 
of 57 delegates entitled under this call to sit in this district or congrciS- 
sional convention 58 delegates Avere ])resent, and that S. A. Jones 
and N. B. Buitoav Avere elected as delegates to the Republican 
national convention, Avith instructions to vote for President Tafr. 
This convention also nominated a candidate for Congress and selected 
a neAv congressional committee to serve for the next tAvo years. 

Evidence Avas introduced conclusively establishing the fact that 


91 


file (lelegiites <'iiiii]i(i.-^ing- tlii?! coiigres.-jidiial convention were fairiv 
elected and duly accredited by the regular and lawful conventions in 
the several counties of the district and that these delegates sat in the 
con\eiitioii throughout the entire proceeding?. 

further evidence introduced on both side? showed that the Hoose- 
^elt ineig Holt and Cochran, liased their claims to seats in this coii- 
^entioll in Cliicago upon a so-called election hy a rnni]) convention 
held nndei the direction of ^Sid B, Hedding, clerk of the Federal court 
at Little Lock, and that Mr. Redding, who was the nnsnccessfnl con¬ 
testant before the national ('onnnittee four years ago and whose 
case ajipears to he no better now, held this rump convention under 
no authority whatsoever, ddiere was not the required notice of ])nh- 
lication, and the only claim to existence of this rimi]) convention is 
])ased n})on a four-day notice issued by the man who had been chair¬ 
man of the congressional committee that was refused recognition hy 
the national committee in 1908. And further evidence was adduced 
to show that this congressional committee since 1908 had had ncfc 
existence. Consequently the evidence jirodnced Ijy IMessrs. Holt and 
Cocliran as to fraud and violence, which they allege that their o])p<>- 
nents used in order to control the county conventions, was ahsolntelv 
refnted and disproven. Lpon these facts the committee recom¬ 
mended the seating of the delegates and alternates now rejiresenting 
the fifth district of Arkansas upon the tenqiorary roll of this conven¬ 
tion. 

MINORITY REPORT. 

We, the undersigned members of the committee on credentials 
of the Republican national conimittee, hereby submit the following: 
report : 

(1) We protest against the action of the following members of the 
committee in sitting upon and particii)ating in the actions of the com¬ 
mittee, Mr. J. C. Adams, of Arizona; Mr. C. A. Warnken, of Texas; 
and Mr. W. T. Dovell, of AVashington, for the reason that each of 
these men was elected by entire delegations whose seats are contested. 

(2) AVe protest against the action of the following men, Mr. J. G. 
Adams, of Arizona; Mr. C. A. Mdirnken, of Texas; and Mr. W. T. 
Dovell, of M'ashington, from participating in and voting upon tlie 
questions in any of the contests on the ground that they are in effe(*t 
sitting as .judges in their own cases. 

(3) AVe protest against Mr. Thomas H. Devine, of Colorado; i\Ir. 
Fred AV. Estahrook, of New Hampshire; i\Ir. Henry Blnn, .jr., of 


92 


Georgia; Mr. L. B. Moseley, of Mississippi; and ^Ir. L. P. Shackle¬ 
ford, of Alaska, sitting as members of this committee, for the reason 
that they were members of the national committee and participated 
in its deliberations and actions. 

(4) We find that the following persons reported upon by the 
majority of members of this committee are not entitled to seats in 
this convention and should not be placed upon its permanent roll: 

ARKANSAS. 

First district. —Delegates: Charles R. French, Charles T. Bloodworth. Alter¬ 
nates: Herschel Neely, Robert B. Campbell. 

Fifth district. —Delegates: N. B. Burrow, S. A. Jones. Alternates: O. N. 
Harkey, S. A. Williams. 

(5) And we further report that in place of the sail persons the 
following persons were duly elected and are legally entitled to seats 
in this convention and should be seated and accredited to their 
respective States and districts, as follows: 


ARKANSAS. « 

First district. —Delegates: Minor M. Markle, J. W. Sykes, and their alter¬ 
nates. 

Fifth district. —W. S. Holt, H. K. Cochran, and their alternates. 


John Byrd Avis. 

Hugh T. Halbert. 

Harry Shaw. 

Jesse A. Tolerton^ Missouri. 
Jesse M. Libby, Maine. 


Charles H. Cowles, North 
Carolina. 

Clency St. Clair, Idaho. 

W. S. Lauder, North Dakota. 
D. J. Norton, Oklahoma. 


MAJORITY REPORT. 

FOURTH CALIFORNIA DISTRICT. 

The committee recommends that E. H. Try on and Morris Meyer- 
feld, jr., of the fourth congressional district of California, and their 
alternates, be transferred from the temporary roll of this convention 
to the permanent roll. The following facts were established: 

The call for the Republican national convention contained the 
following clause: 

Provided, That delegates and alternates, both from the State at large and 
from each congressional district, may be elected in conformity with the laws 
of the State in which the election occurs if the State committee or any such 
congressional committee so direct. 


93 


The section closed Avith the folloA\dng important provision: 

But, provided further, That in no State shall an election be so held as to 
preA^ent the delegates from any congressional district and their alternates being 
selected by the Republican electors of that district. 


The primary vote in this fourth California district was as follows: 
E. H. Tryon, 10,570; INIorris Meyerfeld, jr., 10,531. These men rep¬ 
resented the Taft ticket. Charles S. Wheeler received 10,240 votes^ 
and Philip Bancroft 10,209, representing the Roosevelt ticket. 

On the direct presidential preference vote Taft had 9,622 and 
Roosevelt 9,445. 

In spite of the fact that the Taft ticket received more votes in the 
fourth district than the Roosevelt ticket, the secretary of state 
ignored the rule of the Republican national committee, recognizing 
the right of congressional districts to be represented by their own 
delegates, and issued certificates of election to the 26 RooseATlt dele¬ 
gates receiving the highest number of votes in the State at largo. 
The California presidential election laAv proAudes that a candidate for 
delegate for the national conA^ention may sign a statement bindiog 
him to support a candidate receiving the highest number of votes cast 
throughout the State. The Taft delegates did not sign any sucli 
statement, and are therefore not bound in any Avay to abide by the 
State-AAude vote of California. The laAv itself Avas not passed until 
after the meeting of the Republican national committee. It Avas 
approved December 24, 1911. 

The Republican electors in the fourth California district having 
cast a majority of their votes in favor of the Taft delegates, the square 
issue Avas raised in the case as to the right of the State to pass a 
primary laAV Avhich Avould, in effect, enforce the unit rule. The- 
committee held that a State laAv could not supersede the call of the 
national committee as directed by the Republican national conven¬ 
tion, the supreme source of party regularity. 

MINORITY REPORT. 

CALIFORNIA. 

We, the undersigned members of the committee on credentials of 
the Republican national committee, hereby submit the folloAving 
report: 

We protest emphatically against the tyrannical overthrow of the 
Avill of the people of California, as expressed by a plurality of 77,000 
voters at the presidential primary, in the action of the majority of 


94 


the ineiiibers of credentials coniiiiittee in placin,i>; upon the per¬ 
manent roll of this convention the names of— 


Fourth (tisirict. 

E. II. Tryoii and Morri.s :Me.vcrfeld. jr.. as delej^atc's from California and 
their alternates. 

We further report that in place of the said ])ersons the following 
persons were duly elected and are legally entitled to seats in this 
convention, and should be seated and accredited to their respective 
States and districts, as follows: 


California, fourth (tlstrict. 

Charles S. Wheeler, Philip P>ancroft. and their alternates. 


Ivespectfully submitted. 

S. X. Way, South Dakota. 
Jesse M. Libby, Maine. 

D. J. Norton, Oklahoma. 

Lex N. Mitchell, 

By AVm. P. Young, Pennsylvania 
John J. Sullivan, Ohio. 

A. Ah Swift. 

Hugh T. Halbert. 


R. K. AIcCormick, 

By John E. AVilder, Illinois. 
R. A. Harris, Kansas. 
John Boyd Otis. 

Harry Shaw, West Yir- 
ginia. 

AV. S. Lauder, North Da¬ 
kota. 

Francis J. Heney. 


MAJORITY REPORT. 

DELEGATES AT LARGE FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLCMBIA. 

The committee recommends that AVilliam Calvin Chase and Aaron 
Bradshaw, delegates at large from the District of Columbia, and their 
alternates be transferred from the temporary roll of this convention 
to the permanent roll. There has been no contest made against the 
right of the above mentioned delegates and their alternates before 
your committee on credentials. There was, however, a contest made 
against their right to seats before the national committee. 

The national committee after a full hearing before it by both 
contestants and contestees, unanimously recommended that the 
above-mentioned delegates, AVilliam Calvin Chase and Aaron Brad¬ 
shaw, be placed upon the temporaiy roll of this convention; whicli 
was accordingly done. The right to their seats has not been con¬ 
tested before your committee on credentials and we therefore recom¬ 
mend that the said Chase and Bradshaw and their alternates be 
placed upon the permanent roll of the convention. 


95 


DELEGATES AT LARGE FROM GEORGIA. 

The coiniiiittee decided by iinaniinous vote to seat the delegates at 
large Iroiii the State of Georgia, with their alternates, consisting of 
II. S. Jackson, Henry L. Johnson, I>. J. Davis, and C. P. Goree. 

It was admitted hy the contestants that these delegates were reg- 
nlarly elected at a State convention (*alled hy the regnlar State organ¬ 
ization after due notice given, and that the comity conventions which 
sent delegates to the State convention were called hy the regnlar 
county Repnhlican organizations thronghont the State. It further 
apjieared that the contesting delegation was elected hy a convention 
which was not called together hy any regnlar party organization in 
the State and that the ])ersons who called the same had no connection 
whatever with the regnlar State executive committee. 

The contention of the contesting delegation was that at the time 
the regnlar State convention was held there were no ])ersons qualified 
to vote under the laws of the State of Georgia and that there were 
no qualified voters in the State hetween the Jlst day of December, 

1911, and the 20th day of April, 1912. 

The State of Georgia has a registration law under which every per¬ 
son claiming the rigid of snff'rage must qualify hy having his name 
placed n])on the registration list. These registration lists are pre- 
])ared in years in which a general election i< held and are compiled 
hetween the 20th day of A])ril and the 1st day of June. It was the 
contention of tlie contestants that the registration list for the year 
1912 was first availalJe on April 20. The Taft delegation was 
elected at a State convention held before this date, while the contest¬ 
ing delegation was elected at a convention held 5Iay 21. It was 
clearly shown, however, that the work of preparing the new list of 
registered voters was not com|)leted hy ^lay 21, and that they were 
not required to he de])osited with the proper county officer until the 
5th day of June. 

In further answer to the claim that there were no registered voters 
in the State of Georgia hetween Decem])er’ol, 1911 and April 20, 

1912, it was shown that within these dates a governor of the State had 
been elected at a general election, that a justice of the peace had been 
elected in one of the counties, and that the entire delegation to the 
Democratic national convention had been elected under the old 
registration lists. The same registration lists were used at these 
elections as were used in the elections which selected delegates to the 
county conventions and the Slate convention which elected this 
Taft delegation to the Repnhlican national convention, which was 
placed on the temporary roll. 


90 


Under the laws of Georgia the tax collectors turn over to the 
county registrars the list of voters prepared by them, and the county 
registrars have until the 1st day of June to purge these “voters 
lists ’ and prepare a list of qualified voters, and on or before the 
5tli day of June this new list of qualified voters must be deposited 
with the clerk of the superior court in tlie several counties of the 
State. It followed, therefore, that if the claim of the contestants 
was correct no delegates to the Republican national convention 
could have been elected from the State of Georgia. 

On the showing thus made, the Taft delegation was seated by 
unanimous vote. 

The district contests which were based on the same grounds were 
abandoned. 


INDIANA AT LARGE. 

The committee voted to seat upon the permanent roll of this con¬ 
vention Charles W. Fairbanks, Harry S. New, Joseph D. Oliver, and 
James E. AVatson as the delegates at large and their alternates from 
the State of Indiana. 

The following facts were established as evidence in support of their 
claim to be seated as delegates in this convention: 

The contestants’ claim was based almost wholly on the claim that 
the Indianapolis primaries were fraudulent. Indianapolis is in Mar¬ 
ion County, which constitutes the seventh congressional district. 
The delegates from Marion County, elected at the primaries to the 
State convention, consisted of 128 who were for Taft and 6 who were 
for Roosevelt. Originally 100 of these delegates were contested. 
The delegates were elected by 15 wards in Indianapolis, and in town¬ 
ships outside, direct to the State convention. The largest ward had 
14 delegates, and the average was 8 to a ward. Under the call of the 
State committee, the delegates, to the State convention met by dis¬ 
tricts the night before the convention, and each district was required 
to elect one member of a committee on credentials, which committee 
was to sit as soon as its members were elected. Ten members of this 
committee of 13 were elected without contest and immediately 
organized by electing a chairman and secretary. From each of the 
third, sixth and eleventh districts two delegates appeared, claiming 
to have been elected members of the committee on credentials. The 
committee on credentials, as organized, heard the evidence and in 
the cases of the third and sixth districts seated a Taft delegate and 
from the eleventh seated the Roosevelt delegate. In the cit}^ of 


97 

Indianapolis the total vote at the primaries of March 22 was Taft 
6,163, Roosevelt 1,480. 

The committee then proceeded to hear evidence on the various 
contests. It reported to the convention that the 106 delegates from 
Marion County who had proper credentials, but whose seats were 
contested, were entitled to sit in the convention. As to the other 
contests, some were decided for the Taft and some for the Roosevelt 
delegates. These other contests, however, were so few and the num¬ 
ber of delegates involved so small as not to affect the result. 

Eight of the committee reported in favor of recognizing the Taft 
delegates from Marion County whose seats were contested and five 
presented a minority report in favor of the Roosevelt contestants. 
The minority report of the committee was laid upon the table and 
the majority report adopted by a majority of 105. Complaint was 
made that the sitting delegates from Marion County were permitted 
to vote on adopting the majority report, but no appeal was taken 
from the ruling of the Chair that they were entitled to vote and no 
appeal was taken to the State committee, as required by the rules 
of the party organization in the State. 

The bolting convention was held in a corner of the hall and was 
attended by not more than 100 of the delegates, of whom not more 
than 50 participated in the proceedings. These 50 delegates at¬ 
tempted to elect the contestants who are now claiming to be the 
regularly elected delegates at Rrge from Indiana instructed for 
Roosevelt. The Fairbanks delegation is clearly entitled to be seated. 

MINORITY REPORT. 

INDIANA. 

We, the undersigned members of the committee on credentials, 
of the Republican national committee, hereby submit the following 
report: 

(1) We protest against the action of the following members of the 
committee in sitting upon and participating in the actions of the 
committee, Mr. J. C. Adams, of Arizona, Mr. C. A. Warnken, of 
Texas, and Mr. W. T. Dovell, of Washington, for the reason that 
each of these men was elected by entire delegations whose seats are 
contested. 

(2) We protest against the action of the following men, Mr. J. C. 
Adams, of Arizona; Mr. C. A. Warnken, of Texas; and Mr. W. T. 
Dovell, of AYashington, from participating in and voting upon the 

7-D 


98 


questions in any of the contests on tlie ground that the}" are in effect 
sitting as judges in their own cases. 

(3) We protest against Mr. Thomas II. Devine, of Colorado; Mr. 
Fred AV. Estabrook, of New Hampshire; Mr. Henry Blun, jr., of 
Georgia; Mr. L. B. Moseley, of Mississippi; and Mr. L. P. Shackle¬ 
ford, of Alaska, sitting as members of this committee, for the reason 
that they were members of the national committee and participated 
in its deliberations and actions. 

(4) AVe find that the following persons reported upon by the 
majority of members of this committee are not entitled to seats in 
this convention and should not be placed upon its permanent roll: 

INDIANA. 

Delegates at large: Harry S. New, Clias. W. Fairbanks. .James E. Watson, 
Joseph D. Oliver. Alternates: W. II. McCurdy. William E. Eppert, Summer 
A. Furniss, Virgil Reiter. 

(5) And we further report that in place of the said persons the 
following persons were duly elected and are legally entitled to seats 
in this convention and should be seated and accredited to their 
respective States and districts, as follows: 

INDIANA AT I^RGE. 

Delegates: Albert J. Beveridge, Edwin M. Lee, Fred K. Landis, Charles H. 
Campbell, and their alternates. 

R. R. AlcCoRMicK, Illinois, 
By John E. AVilder. 

John J, Sullivan, Ohio. 

Hugh T. Halbert. 

Jesse M. Libby, Maine. 

Jesse A. Tolerton, Alis- 
souri. 

John Boyd Avis, New Jer¬ 
sey. 

Chas. H. Cowles, North 
Carolina. 

AAk S. Lauder, North Da¬ 
kota. 

D. J. Norton, Oklahoma. 

Harry Shaw, AVest Vir- 
* ginia. 

A. V. Swift, Oregon. 

L. N. Mitchell, Pennsyl¬ 
vania. 

By AA^m. P. Young. 

R. A. Harris, Kansas. 


99 


MAJORITY REPORT. 

THIRTEENTH INDIANA. 

The committee voted to seat Clement \V. Studebaker and Maurice 
Fox, delegates and their alternates for the thirteenth congressional 
district of Indiana. 

The convention for this district met at the proper time and place 
provided for in the call and in strict conformity with the national 
call. The convention was organized by electing the Taft candidate, 
A. G. Graham, as chairman. He received 7114 votes as against 70% 
votes cast for Mr. Jones, his opponent. The committee on creden¬ 
tials was appointed, and six Taft contests and two Roosevelt contests 
Avere submitted to the committee on credentials, all of which Avere 
OA^erruled. The report denying the claim of the eight contestants 
Avas signed by four members of this committee, a majority, and no 
minority report AA^as presented. There Avas much disorder in the 
convention and the Taft delegates who hold the credentials were 
elected by a viva A^oce vote, as Avere their alternates. No other 
nominations Avere made. 

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS ON KENTUCKY AT 

LARGE. 

We, the committee on credentials, hereby recommend that W. 0. 
Bradley, James Breathitt, W. D. Cochran, and J. E. Wood, and their 
altexnates, be placed on the permanent roll of this convention as 
delegates and alternates at large from the State of Kentucky. 

A contest was presented to and heard by the national committee 
and the above-named delegates and alternates Avere placed on the 
temporary roll. No contest Avas presented before the committee on 
credentials and it Avas adAused that said contest had Been abandoned. 

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS ON FIRST KENTUCKY 
DISTRICT. 

We, the committee on credentials, hereby recommend that W. J. 
Deboe and J. T. Tooke and their alternates be placed on the per¬ 
manent roll of this convention as delegates and alternates from the 
first Kentucky district. 

A contest Avas presented to and heard by the national committee 
and the above-named delegates and alternates Avere placed on the 
temporary roll. No contest Avas presented before this committee, 
but it Avas advised that the contest had been abandoned. 


100 


REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS ON SECOND KENTUCKY 
DISTRICT. 

We, the committee on credentials, hereby recommend that R. A. 
Cook and J. B. Harvey and their alternates be placed on the perma¬ 
nent roll of this convention as delegates and alternates from the 
second district of Kentucky. 

A contest was presented to and heard by the national committee 
and the above-named delegates and alternates were placed on the 
temporary roll. No contest was presented before this committee 
from this district, but it was advised that the contest had been 
abandoned. 

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS ON THE FOURTH KENTUCKY 

DISTRICT. 

AYe, the committee on credentials, hereby recommend that Pilson 
Smith and J. Roy Bond and their alternates be placed on the per¬ 
manent roll of this convention as delegates and alternates from the 
fourth district of Kentucky. 

A contest was presented to and heard by the national committee, 
and the above-named delegates and alternates were placed on the 
temporary roll. No contest was presented before this committee 
from this district, but it was advised that the contest had been 
abandoned. 

SEVENTH KENTUCKY. 

The committee respectfully recommends the seating of Richard C. 
Stoll, of Lexington, Fayette County, and James Cureton, of Henry 
County, as delegates from the seventh congressional district of Ken- 
tuck}^, and George R. Armstrong, of Owen County, and E. W. Che- 
nault, of Fa^'^ette County, as alternate delegates from said seventh 
congressional district of Kentucky. 

Your committee begs leave to state that it has heard a full presenta¬ 
tion of the evidence and an exhaustive argument of those represent¬ 
ing the delegates and alternates, whose seating they recommend, as 
well as the adverse parties, at the close of which your committee finds 
the following facts: 

The call for the seventh congressional district convention of 
Kentucky was properly made by the congressional district committee 
and the convention was regularly called and held in accordance with 
the call. There were four contested counties in the seventh con- 


101 


gressional district and four counties in said district which were 
uncontested, the four uncontested counties being for Taft. 

According to the rule of the Republican organization of the State 
of Kentucky, where two sets of credentials are presented, those dele¬ 
gates whose credentials are approved by the county chairman call¬ 
ing the county convention to order are entitled to participate in the 
temporary organization of the convention. This rule was followed 
and there was no objection thereto and on the vote for a temporary 
chairman, Wiard, the Taft candidate, received 98 votes and Throc- 
morton, the Roosevelt candidate, received 47 votes in the district 
convention. 

A committee on credentials was appointed, each county in the 
district selecting one member of the committee, as is required by the 
rules of the Republican organization of Kentucky, no objection 
being made thereto. This committee met and was in session sev¬ 
eral hours and everyone had an abundant opportunity to be heard 
and to present his cause before said committee. 

The majority report of the committee on credentials, and this 
report was signed by every member of the committee except Henry 
T. Duncan, jr., who was a candidate before said convention, recom¬ 
mended the seating of the Taft contested delegation in Fayette 
County, the seating of the regular delegations in Scott and Franklin 
Counties, and the unseating of the regular Taft delegation in Wood¬ 
ford County—^Mr. Duncan signing the report as to Woodford 
County—and the seating of the Roosevelt delegation. Mr. Duncan 
presented a minority report. 

Under the rules of the Republican Party in Kentucky a county in 
contest is not permitted to vote on its own case and the'majority 
report of the committee was adopted unanimously in the case of each 
contested county, the votes ranging from 98 to 0 to 131 to 0. 

Mr. Stoll and Mr. Cureton were elected delegates to this conven¬ 
tion unanimously, as were Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Chenault, who 
were elected alternates. It was contended before the committee that 
the Roosevelt delegation should have been seated in the counties of 
Fayette, Scott, and Franklin. 

The committee find the facts to be as follows: In Fayette County 
the testimony shows that the legal voters on the Taft side were 
largely in the majority, but that the Roosevelt chairman of the con¬ 
vention failed and refused, upon demand properly made, to count 
the votes in the convention, and the committee is of the opinion that 
the Roosevelt delegates should have been unseated in the convention 


102 


and the Taft delegates in Fayette County should have been seated, 
for the reason that had a count been had of the legal voters when 
demanded a large majority would have been found in favor of the 
Taft delegates to the district (*onvention. 

In the county of Franklin the convention was called to order at 
the time and place set forth in the call. The Roosevelt people did 
not nominate anyone for temporary chairman of the convention. 

We find that the Taft people Avere largely in the majority and that 
the Roosevelt people did not attempt to organize or hold any con¬ 
vention in Franklin County at the place and time at which the con¬ 
vention Avas called, although given abundant opportunity to nomi¬ 
nate a chairman of the convention, and upon being assured by the 
Chair that they Avould be accorded fair treatment) the Roosevelt 
people refused to nominate any chairman of the convention and left 
the hall before any ruling whatever had been made against them, 
and the committee is of the opinion that the regular delegation in 
the county of Scott should have been seated by the district conven¬ 
tion, as was done. 

In the county of Scott the Taft people were largely the majority; 
and upon nominations being asked for temporary chairman, both 
the Roosevelt and the Taft people nominated persons for chairman. 
Tellers were appointed, and Avhile the count was in progress and 
Avhen it had become apparent that the Taft people were in the 
majority, the Roosevelt people, Avithout cause, left the hall before 
any ruling Avas made against them whatsoever, and the committee is 
of the opinion that the district convention should have seated the 
regular Taft delegation, which they did. 

In the county of Woodford the evidence shoAvs that there AA^ere 
about as many Roosevelt people as there were Taft people at the 
convention, but the chairman of the convention refused to permit 
a count of the votes upon request of the Roosevelt people, and the 
district convention unseated the regular Taft delegation and seated 
the contesting Roosevelt delegation. The committee is of the opin¬ 
ion that this action was correct. 

The committee further finds that the four counties in the district 
which were uncontested were instructed for Taft delegates, and the 
committee therefore finds that Richard C. Stoll, of Lexington. 
Fayette County, and James Cureton, of Henry County, are the 
regular and duly elected delegates from the seventh congressional 
district of Kentucky and that George R. Armstrong and E. W 
Chenault Avere regularly and duly elected alternate delegates from 
said district. 


103 


EIGHTH KENTUCKY. 

The coiiiiHittee reeoniiiieiids the seating of L. W. Bethumiii, of 
Mount Vernon, Rockcastle County, Ky., and C. C. Wallace, of 
Richmond, Madison County, Ky., as delegates from the eighth con¬ 
gressional district of Kentucky and J. B. Kinchloe, of Shelbyville, 
Shelby County, Ky., and George W. Gentry, Stanford, Lincoln 
County, Ky., as alternate delegates from said eighth congressional 
district of Kentucky. 

Your committee begs leave to report that it hgs heard a full pre¬ 
sentation of the evidence and an exhaustive argument from those 
representing the delegates and alternates, whose seating they recom¬ 
mend, as well as the adverse parties, at the close of which your com¬ 
mittee finds the following facts: 

The call for the eighth congressional district convention of Ken¬ 
tucky was properly made by the congressional district committee 
and the convention was regularly called and held in accordance 
with the call. There were three contested counties in the eighth 
congressional district and six counties in said district which were 
uncontested, the six uncontested counties being for Taft. 

According to the rules of the Republican organization of the State 
of Kentucky, where two sets of credentials are presented, those 
delegates whose credentials are approved by the county chairman, 
calling the county convention to order, are entitled to participate in a 
temporary organization of the convention. This rule was followed 
and there was no objection thereto, and on the vote for a temporary 
chairman, Leonard W. Bethurum, the Taft candidate, received 142 
votes, and A. R. Burnham, jr., the Roosevelt candidate, received 
21 votes. 

A committee on credentials was appointed, each county in the 
district selecting one member of the committee, as is required by the 
rules of the Republican organization of Kentucky, no objection being 
made thereto. This committee met and was in session for a sufficient 
period of time to hear, and every one had an opportunity to be heard 
and to present his case before said committee. The report, of the 
committee on credentials was unanimous and recommended that 
each delegation from the county of Boyle, be seated, with half a vote 
each, and that the delegation from Garrard and Madison Counties, 
certified to by the regular county chairman, were entitled to be seated. 
These delegations were for Taft. The report of this committee was 
unanimously adopted, the counties uncontested not voting in their 


104 


cases. Mr. Bethurum and Mr. Wallace were elected delegates to this 
convention by the unanimous vote of the district convention, as were 
the alternates, Mr. Kinchloe and Mr. Gentry. As to the facts in each 
of the contested counties, the committee finds that as to Boyle, the 
division of the delegates as reported was agreed to, and as to Mercer 
County, the count showed a majority of 35 for Taft. Upon the 
count being reported objection was made, and all parties agreed 
that a recount should be had by Mr. James B. Spillman, the secre¬ 
tary of the county committee. This recount was made by him, and 
reported as being in* favor of Mr. Taft by from 30 to 35 votes. While 
the committees were out the Roosevelt forces withdrew from the 
courthouse, with the exception of Mr. Riker, who was for Mr. Roose¬ 
velt and had been appointed a teller in his behalf to count the votes. 
Mr. Riker remained in the convention as he knew the vote was 
correct. 

As to Mi^dison County, the committee finds that the suggestion 
made by the Taft people to count the vote was rejected by the ad¬ 
herents of Mr. Roosevelt. The suggestion was that the count be 
made by filling the entire courthouse and that counters be appointed 
to see that no one returned thereto after he was counted out; that 
four tellers be appointed to count the Taft votes out of one door and 
the Roosevelt votes out of another door; two Democrats to act to elim¬ 
inate from the crowd any Democrat therein, and one Taft teller and 
one Roosevelt teller. This plan was rejected by the adherents of 
Mr. Roosevelt, and the convention adjourned to the front yard. 
Roosevelt adherents demanded that the tellers be elected. The 
Chair declined to put this motion, but offered to appoint the tellers 
suggested by either side. Whereupon the Roosevelt crowd bolted. 
The proof amply shows that the Taft adherents outnumbered the 
Roosevelt adherents from two to three to one. 

The committee further finds that the three counties uncontested 
had they all been decided in favor of Mr. Roosevelt by the creden¬ 
tials committee of the district convention, would have shown only 
64 votes therein against the 94 uncontested votes for Taft. 

We, therefore, find that Leonard W. Bethurum, of Mount Vernon, 
Ky., and Coleman C. Wallace, of Richmond, Madison County, Ky., 
are the regular duly elected delegates from the eighth congressional 
district of Kentucky; that George W. Gentry and J. B. Kinchloe 
were regularly and duly elected alternate delegates from said district. 


105 


ELEVENTH KENTUCKY. 

After a thorough investigation of the facts concerning the con¬ 
test in the eleventh congressional district of Kentucky, the com¬ 
mittee recommends that the delegates and the alternates from this 
district now upon the temporary roll of this convention *be trans¬ 
ferred to the permanent roll. Because of the conflicting testimony 
and the variance of facts in this case, the committee believes that in 
the selection of one Taft delegate, Mr. 0. H. Waddle, and his alter¬ 
nate, and of one Roosevelt delegate, Mr. D. C. Edwards, and his 
alternate, complete justice is being exercised and the respective 
claims of both parties to represent this district in the national con¬ 
vention are being fairly and equitably settled. 

MINORITY REPORT. 

We, the undersigned members of the committee on credentials of 
the Republican national committee, hereby submit the following 
report: 

(1) We protest against the action of the following members of the 
committee in sitting upon and participating in the actions of the 
committee, Mr. J. 0. Adams, of Arizona; Mr. C. A. Warnken, of 
Texas; and Mr. W. T. Dovell, of Washington, for the reason that 
each of these men was elected by entire delegations whose seats are 
contested. 

(2) We protest against the action of the following men, Mr. J. C. 
Adams, of Arizona; Mr. C. A. Warnken, of Texas; and Mr. W. T. 
Dovell, of Washington, from participating in and voting upon the 
questions in any of the contests on the ground that they are, in effect, 
sitting as judges in their own cases. 

(3) We protest against Mr. Thomas H. Devine, of Colorado; Mr. 
Fred W. Estabrook, of New Hampshire; Mr. Henry Blun, jr., of 
Georgia; Mr. L. B. Moseley, of Mississippi; and Mr. L. P. Shackle¬ 
ford, of Alaska, sitting as miembers of this committee, for the reason 
that they were members of the national committee and participated 
in its deliberations and actions. 

(4) We find that the following persons reported upon by the ma¬ 
jority of members of this committee are not entitled to seats in this 
convention and should not be placed upon its permanent roll: 


106 


KENTUCKY. 

Seventh Delegates: K. (’. Stoll. James Curetoii. Alternates: Geo. 

R. Armstrong, Edward Cbenanlt. 

Eighth d/str/c#.—Coleman C. Wallace, Leonard W. Betliuriun and their 
alternates. 

Eleventh'district.—D. C. Edwards, O. II: Waddle, and their alternates. 


(5) And we further report that in place of the said persons the fol¬ 
lowing persons were duly elected and are legally entitled to seats in 
this convention and should be seated and accredited to their respec¬ 
tive States and districts, as follows: 

Seventh district .—Henry T. Duncan, M. ('. Rankin, and their alternates. 

Eighth district.—WiUhxui S. Law will, II. Kastin, and their alternates. 

Eleventh district.— J. Betlmrinn, D. C. Edwards, and their alternates. 

John J. Sullivan. 

R. A. Harris, Kansas. 

Jesse A. Tolerton, Missouri. 

John Boyd Avis, New Jersey. 

D. J. Norton, Oklahoma. 

Hugh T. Halbert. 

Wm. S. Lauder. 

MAJORITY REPORT. 

FOURTH LOUISIANA. 

The committee, after a thorough and complete investigation of 
the facts in the contest from the fourth Louisiana district, recom¬ 
mends that the delegates from this district now upon the temporary 
roll, as well as their alternates, be transferred to the permanent 
roll, to wit, A. C. Lea and J. B. Breda, and their alternates. 

These delegates were elected at a district convention, duly called 
by the regular Republican district organization, which has adhered 
to the Republican State organization, and has been recognized by 
the subcommittee of the Republican national committee. This 
subcommittee of the national committee visited Louisiana this 
year in order to settle the political controversy in that State. The 
Williams-Wight delegation, which is the contesting or Roosevelt 
delegation in this contest, was not recognized by this subcommittee 
of the national committee. This Roosevelt delegation from this 
district was elected at a pretended convention, consisting of a mere 
handful of men, who assembled in response to a call issued by F. V. 


107 


Williams, who has been deposed as chairman of the State com¬ 
mittee. The Williams-Wight delegation represents no regular 
Republican organization in Louisiana, since they have been dis¬ 
credited by this subcommittee of the national committee, and 
consequently Lea and Breda have been lawfully and regularly 
elected. 

FIFTH LOUISIANA. 

The committee recommiends that the delegates from the fifth 
Louisiana district now upon the temporary roll, as well as their alter¬ 
nates, be placed upon the permanent roll, to wit, W. T. Insley and 
F. H. Cook, and their alternates. 

These delegates were elected at a district convention, duly called 
and regularly held. The main points in this case are much like those 
which appeared in the preceding case of the fourth Louisiana dis¬ 
trict. The convention first called had to be postponed because the 
district was flooded by the overflow of the Mississippi River. W. T. 
Insley and F. H. Cook were regularly elected, and they and their 
alternates are entitled to be seated in this convention. 

MICHIGAN CONTEST. 

The committee on credentials makes the following report relative 
to the contest from the State of Michigan: 

The question before the committee was who constituted the 
regular Republican State convention. Incidental to this question 
certain subsidiary questions arose, which the committee determines 
as follows: 

First. The preconvention meeting of the State central committee 
was a legal one, a majority of the members thereof having joined in a 
call therefor. It appears that no rules were ever adopted by the 
committee and there are, therefore, no regulations as to who shall 
call meetings or when they shall be held, and a majority necessarily 
possessed the right to call a meeting and to hold a meeting. 

Second. It is unquestionably the duty of the committee to make 
up the temporary roll for the convention. Some authority must 
exist somewhere which shall determine who shall participate in a 
convention until such time as the convention shall determine that 
question for itself. In other words, it is the duty of the committee 
to see that the convention which assembles is the one which is called. 

Third. The State central committee has the right to select the 


108 


temporary chairman of the convention. It therefore can rescind its 
action and unmake what it has created. The chairman first selected 
admitted that he would permit no roll calls in the convention and 
that all votes would be taken viva voce. 

Fourth. Delegates’ tickets to the convention were issued to the 
chairmen of delegations by the proper officers of the State central 
committee under direction of the committee. They were issued in 
a public and conspicuous place in ample time for the convention. 
The time and place of distribution were matters of common knowl¬ 
edge, and no showing of discrimination in their distribution has been 
made to this committee. 

The doors of the convention were kept open at all times for the 
admission of delegates, with the exception of one interval, when 
there was a rush by the crowd. During this time the doors were 
temporarily closed; all delegates not yet admitted were excluded for 
the time being. Taft delegates were excluded as well as Roosevelt 
delegates, and as many of one as the other. As soon as adequate 
police protection was secured, which was before the convention was 
organized, the doors were reopened and remained open throughout 
the entire session of the convention. There was no discrimination 
in admitting delegates to the convention. 

Fifth. The so-called convention at which contestants claim they 
were chosen was not a convention in any sense of the term. No 
committees whatever were appointed; the credentials of the persons 
participating were not presented to or acted upon by any committee 
or by the so-called convention itself; no one knows who took part in 
it; there is no evidence whatever of the number of votes cast for the 
contestants; no business provided for in the call was transacted, 
except the pretended selection of delegates and alternates to the 
national convention and the pretended adoption of resolutions; not 
to exceed 50 persons participated, and when these persons finally left 
the convention not to exceed 200 delegates left with them, out of a 
total number of 1,312. 

Sixth. The regular convention was at all times conducted in a 
proper manner. The call was read and a vote taken on the question 
of the selection of temporary chairman; reports of district caucuses 
were received and confirmed; committees were constituted and con¬ 
vened and their reports made and adopted; delegates at large and 
alternates were elected; presidential electors were nominated; the 
present members of the State central committee and a chairman 


109 


thereof were selected; roll calls by counties were had on the question 
of the selection of a temporary chairman, the adoption of the report 
of the committee on credentials and the committee on permanent 
organization and order of business, and on the election of delegates at 
large; resolutions were reported and adopted; addresses were made by 
party leaders and all of the business provided for in the call was 
transacted. An adjournment was regularly taken. At all times 
there were nearly a thousand delegates in the hall, out of a total of 
1,312, as is shown by the report of the credentials committee, the 
several roll calls and affidavits of the chairmen of delegations who 
participated. 

No contests were presented to the State central committee before 
the convention, to the committee on credentials appointed by the 
convention, or to the convention itself. 

The committee, therefore, determines that there is no just cause for 
contest in this case. The delegates at large and alternates to the 
national convention from Michigan whose names appear on the tem¬ 
porary roll were selected at a State convention properly and regularly 
called; they received a majority of all of the votes in the convention 
without counting the votes of any delegations which contestants 
alleged or now allege were subject to contest. 

The committee on credentials, therefore, recommends that the 
names of John D. MacKay, William J. Richards, George B. Morley, 
Eugene Pifield, Fred. A. Diggins, and William Judson, as delegates 
at large from the State of Michigan, and the names of Alton T. 
Roberts, Herbert A. Thompson, Crawford S. Reilly, Charles B. 
Warren, Charles E. White, and Ray E. Hart, as alternate delegates 
at large from such State, be transferred from the temporary roll of 
this convention and added to and made a part of the permanent roll 
thereof. 


MINORITY REPORT. 

MICHIGAN. 

We, the undersigned members of the committee on credentials 
of the Republican national committee, hereby submit the following 
report: 

(1) We protest against the action of the following members of the 
committee in sitting upon and participating in the actions of the 
committee, Mr. J. C. Adams, of Arizona; Mr. C. A. Warnken, of 
Texas; and Mr. W. T. Dovell, of Washington, for the reason that 


110 


each of these men was elected by entire delegations whose seats are 
contested. 

(2) We protest against the action of the following men, Mr. J. C. 
Adams, of Arizona; Mr. C. A. Warnken, of Texas; and Mr. W. T. 
Dovell, of Washington, from participating in and voting upon the 
questions in any of the contests on the ground that they are in effect 
sitting as judges in their own cases. 

(3) We protest against Mr. Thomas H. Devine, of Colorado; Mr. 
Fred W. Estabrook, of New Hampshire; Mr. Henry Blun, Jr., of 
Georgia; Mr. L. B. Moseley, of Mississippi; and Mr. L. P. Shackle¬ 
ford, of Alaska, sitting as members of this committee, for the reason 
that they were members of the national committee and participated 
in its deliberations and actions. 

(4) We find that the following persons reported upon by the 
majority of members of this committee are not entitled to seats in 
this convention and should not be placed upon its permanent roll: 

MICHIGAN. 

fitate at large. —Delegates; John D. MacKay, William J. Richards, George 
B. Morley, Eugene Fifield, Fred A. Diggins, William Judson, and their alter¬ 
nates. 

(5) And we further report that in place of the said persons the 
following persons were duly elected and are legally entitled to seats 
in this convention and should be seated and accredited to their 
respective States and districts, as follows: 

MICHIGAN. 

state at large. —Delegates: Chase S. Osborn, Charles A. Nichols, Sybrant 
Wesselius, Theodore .Joslin, Herbert F. Boughey, William D. Gordon, and their 
alternates. 


Harry Shaw, West Virginia. 
Jesse M. Libby, Maine. 

W. S. Lauder, North Dakota. 
John Boa'd Otis, New Jersey. 
John J. Sullivan, Ohio. 
Jesse A. Tolerton. Missouri. 


Pt. P. ^McCormick, Illinois. 
By John E. Wilder, Illinois. 

B. A. Harris, Kansas. 

Hugh T. Halbert. 

L. N. ^IiTCiiELL, Pennsylvania 
By Wm. P. A^oung, proxy. 


MAJORITY REPORT. 

MISSISSIPPI AT LARGE. 

The delegation at large from the State of Mississippi, consisting of 
L. B. Moseley, M. J. Mulvihill, Charles Banks, and L. K. Atwood, 



Ill 


and their alternates, is the only delegation representing Mississippi 
at large which Avas duly elected, and the committee finds that thej^- are 
entitled to be placed on the permanent roll. The State convention 
which elected Mr. ]Moseley and his colleagues was conducted strictly 
in accordance Avith the call of the national committee. Due notice 
AA^as given and all necessary formality AA^as complied Avith. The num¬ 
ber of delegates entitled to seats in the convention was 274, all of 
AA’hom AA’ere present but 2. There AA’ere three contests, which Avere 
settled by giving each side one-half vote each. No other contests 
Avere presented to the convention or to the committee on credentials. 
There AA^as a diAusion on the vote instructing the delegates at large to 
vote for Taft, but the resolution AA\as adopted by 258 ayes to 12 nays, 
2 not voting. All the delegates remained in the convention until it 
adjourned and AA’ere giA^en full and free speech on all matters. A few 
persons, not over 20 in numl>er, assembled in another part of the 
building AA^here the regular couA^ention was being held and pretended 
to hold a State convention. Several entirely disinterested Avitnesses, 
men of high standing, testified to the absolute correctness of the 
above statements. There is no ground on AA^hich to base a contest 
against these regularly elected delegates from the State at large, and 
they should be seated. 


MINORITY REPORT. 


MISSISSIPPI. 

We, the undersigned members of the committee on credentials of 
the Republican national committee, hereby submit the folloAving 
report: 

(1) We protest against the action of the following members of 
the committee in sitting upon and participating in the actions of the 
committee, ]\Ir. .1. C. Adams, of Arizona; Mr. C. A. Warnken. of 
Texas; and ^Ir. W. T. Dovell, of Washington, for the reason that 
each of these men AA^as elected by entire delegations whose seats are 
contested. 

(2) We protest against the action of the folloAAung men, Mr. J. C. 
Adams, of Arizona; oMr. 0. A. Warnken, of Texas; and Mr. W. T. 
DoA^ell, of Washington, from participating in and voting upon the 
questions in any of the contests on the ground that they are in effect 
sitting as judges in their oaaui cases. 

(3) We protest against ]\Ir. Thomas H. Devine, of Colorado; Mr. 
Fred W. Estabrook, of Noaa' Hampshire; Mr. Henry Blun, jr., of 


112 


Georgia; Mr. L. B. Moseley, of Mississippi; and Mr. L. P. Shackle¬ 
ford, of Alaska, sitting as members of this committee, for the reason 
that they were members of the national committee and participated 
in its deliberations and actions. 

(4) We find that the following persons, reported upon by the 
majority of memebers of this committee, are not entitled to seats in 
this convention and should not be placed upon its permanent roll: 

MISSISSIPPI. 

State at large. —Delegates: L. B. Moseley, M. J. Mulviliill, Charles Banks, 
L. K. Atwood, and their alternates. 

(5) And we further report that in place of the said persons the 
following persons were duly elected and are legally entitled to seats 
in this convention, and should be seated and accredited to their re¬ 
spective States and districts, as follows: 

MISSISSIPPI. 

state at large. —Delegates: W. E. Mollison, Sidney D. Redmond, L. W. 
Graham, Charles Banks, and their alternates. 

Jesse M. Libby. 

W. S. Lauder. 

John Boyd Avis. 

John J. Sullivan, Ohio. 

MAJORITY REPORT. 

SECOND MISSISSIPPI DISTRICT. 

The committee recommends the seating of J. P. Butler and E. H. 
^McKissack as delegates and E. AV. Dubois and S. M. Howry as 
alternates from the second Mississippi district. There was only 
one congressional convention held in this district, and that was held 
under the authority of the regular Republican organization. Due 
notice was given of the meeting and the proceedings were regular in 
every respect. Not a single contest arose and no one bolted, all the 
delegates remaining in the convention hall until the meeting ad¬ 
journed. No one entitled to a seat in the convention was denied 
admission and there was no other convention held. Jonas A\^. Avant, 
of Lafayette County, one of the contestants, tried to address the 
regular convention but was refused permission to talk as he was not a 
qualified elector. The sheriff of Lafayette County testifies that 
Avant is not a registered or qualified voter of the county, that he 
has not paid his poll tax for years, and that he is entirely disqualified 
from registering as a voter. 


113 


This case is a fair sample of the paper contests which are fre¬ 
quently brought before the Eepublican national convention. While 
the regular district convention was being held Avant, with five 
others, went to the store of II. W. Doxey while the latter was attend¬ 
ing the convention, and pretended to hold a convention of their own. 
The testimony shows that no convention had been called to meet at 
this store; that no legal convention was held there; that Avant and 
the five men who met with him used a desk in the back part of the 
store for a few minutes; that they were not delegates to the regular 
convention and only represented two of the nine counties composing 
that congressional district. The contest brought in this case is of the 
most flimsy character and Butler and McKissack and their alternates 
are entitled to be placed upon the permanent roll. 

FIFTH MISSISSIPPI DISTRICT. 

The committee recommends that W. .1. Price and A. Buckley be 
transferred from the temporary roll of this convention, as represent¬ 
atives of the fifth congressional district of Mississippi to the Bepub- 
lican national convention, to the permanent roll. They are the 
regularly elected delegates, as the affidavits and evidence introduced 
during the hearing of this particular case made manifest. Their 
election and the call of their convention was in strict conformity 
with the national call. The proceedings of the convention itself and 
all the preliminaries were in due and legal form. There was no con¬ 
test in the convention, and at all times it was very harmonious. 
Oiderly procedure was observed during the entire convention, and at 
the conclusion of business and the election of delegates proper ad¬ 
journment was moved. 

It has never appeared upon exactly what ground the contestants 
base their claims. What brief they may have had did not present to 
this committee any facts nor were any facts proven during this hear¬ 
ing which would warrant this committee in the slightest to challenge 
the rights of Mr. Price and Mr. Buckley to their places in the perma¬ 
nent roll. 

SIXTH MISSISSIPPI DISTRICT. 

In the sixth Mississippi district J. C. Tyler and W. P. Locker were 
found by the committee to be the regularly elected delegates and 
entitled to be placed upon the permanent roll of the convention. 
The district convention was held strictly in accordance with the call 
of the national committee. The proceedings were of the most orderly 

8—D 


114 


and harmonious character, no contesting delegations appeared, and 
no other convention was held in the same town that day. J. IM. 
Leverett and Charles ]\I. Hays claim to have been elected by a con¬ 
vention held that day under the call for the regular convention. 
Several witnesses of the highest standing, including several county 
officials, testified that they saw the two contestants in the town of 
:Mendelhall the day the convention met, but that none of them w^ere 
seen in town after the departure that day of the 12.40 train, the 
train which brought into town most of the delegates to the conven¬ 
tion. They had absolutely no grounds on which to base their contest. 
The committee recommends that J. C. Tyler and W. P. Locker and 
their alternates be placed on the permanent roll of the convention. 

SEVENTH MISSISSIPPI DISTRICT. 

The committee recommends that E. P. Brennan, sr., and C. B. 
Ligon, delegates from the seventh Mississippi congressional district, 
and their alternates, be placed upon the permanent roll of this con¬ 
vention. They are the rightful delegates from the seventh Missis¬ 
sippi district as has been evidenced before this committee by affi¬ 
davits and overwhelming proof. The convention which elected 
them was regular in every respect. All preliminaries were duly 
observ^ed. The sheriff of the county in which the convention was 
held testifies it was the most orderly Republican convention ever 
held there, and that it was largely attended. He says no other 
Republican convention was held in the courthouse the day the regu¬ 
lar convention met. The claim that the contestants F. S. Swalm 
and Dr. W. H. Broxton were elected delegates and Dr. C. L. Ripley 
and F. S. Crawford alternates has absolutely no foundation. F. S. 
Swalm has lived in Brockhaven 15 or 16 years and never partici¬ 
pated in a Republican convention in his life. Dr. Ripley, of the 
same place, says he knows nothing whatever of any convention 
which elected him as an alternate and that he never participated in 
any. Dr. Broxton and Prof. Crawford are not known by residents 
of Darbun, where they claim to live, and no such persons were in 
Brockhaven on the day the regular district convention met and 
elected Brennan and Ij’gon delegates to the national convention. 

DELEGATES FROM MISSOURI AT LARGE. 

The committee on credentials hereby recommend that Herbert S'. 
Hadley, Jesse A. Tolerton, Walter S. Dickey, and Hugh Mclndoe 


115 


and their alternates be placed upon the permanent roll of this con¬ 
vention as delegates and alternates at large from the State of 
Missouri. 

The above-named delegates and alternates were contested before 
the national committee, but no contest has been filed before the 
committee on credentials, and your committee is advised that said 
contests have been abandoned. 

THE THIRD MISSOURI DISTRICT. 

The committee on credentials hereby recommend that H. G. 
Orton and H. L. Eads and their alternates be placed upon the per¬ 
manent roll of this convention as delegates and alternates at large 
from the State of Missouri. 

The above-named delegates and alternates were contested before 
the national committee, but no contest has been filed before the 
committee on credentials, and your committee is advised that said 
contests have been abandoned. 

THE FIFTH MISSOURI DISTRICT. 

The committee on credentials hereby recommends that Homer B. 
Mann and Earnest R. Sweeney and their alternates be placed upon 
the permanent roll of this convention as delegates and alternates at 
large from the State of Missouri. 

The above-named delegates and alternates were contested before 
the national committee, but no contest has been filed before the 
committee on credentials, and your committee is advised that said 
contests have been abandoned. 

SEVENTH MISSOURI DISTRICT. 

The committee on credentials hereby recommends that Richard 
Johnson and Louis Hoffman and their alternates be placed upon the 
permanent roll of this convention as delegates and alternates at 
large from the State of ^Missouri. 

The above-named delegates and alternates were contested before 
the national committee, but no contest has been filed before the com¬ 
mittee on credentials, and your committee is advised that said con¬ 
tests have been abandoned. 


116 


THIRTEENTH MISSOURI DISTRICT. 

The committee on credentials hereby recommends that Politte 
Elvins and- John H. Peppy, delegates from the thirteenth Missouri 
district, and Charles E. Kiefner and Lin Grisham, as alternate dele¬ 
gates from said district, be placed upon the permanent roll of this 
convention as delegates and alternate delegates from said district. 

More than the authorized number of delegates having been certi¬ 
fied to the national committee, the said committee resolved to seat 
the above-named delegates and alternates. No contest having been 
filed before the committee on credentials, the committee assumes 
that said action of the national committee has been agreed to. 

FOURTEENTH MISSOURI DISTRICT. 

The committee on credentials hereby recommends that H. Byrd 
Duncan and George S. Green and their alternates be placed upon 
the permanent roll of this convention as delegates and alternates 
at laige from the State of Missouri. 

The above-named delegates and alternates were contested before 
the national committee, but no contest has been filed before the com¬ 
mittee on credentials and your committee is advised that said con¬ 
tests have been abandoned. 

SIXTEENTH MISSOURI DISTRICT. 

The committee on credentials hereby recomends that Walter W. 
Durnell and William B. Elmer, delegates from the sixteenth Missouri 
district, and John H. Dennis and P. A. Bennett, alternate delegates 
from said district, be placed upon the permanent roll of this conven¬ 
tion as delegates and alternate delegates from said district. 

More than the authorized number of delegates having been certi¬ 
fied to the national committee, the said committee resolved to seat 
the above-named delegates and alternates. No contest having been 
filed before the committee on credentials, the committee assume that 
said action of the national committee has been agreed to. 

FOURTH NORTH CAROLINA DISTRICT. 

The committee on credentials recommends that John C. Matthews 
and J. C. L. Harris, delegates from the fourth North Carolina dis¬ 
trict, and Bland A. Mitchell and Charles D. Wildes, their alternates, 
be seated as the regular delegates and alternates to this convention. 


117 


There was a unanimous report on the part of the national com¬ 
mittee, recommending the seating of the above-named delegates and 
alternates. 

It is without dispute that there are but 91 votes in the fourth 
North Carolina district convention, and that if the counties of Wake, 
Vance, and Franklin had not been thrown out the above-named 
delegates would have had 52 votes supporting them, the same being 
a clear, safe majority. 

It further appears that Mr. Charles H. Cowles, the minority mem¬ 
ber of this committee, made a motion in the North Carolina State 
convention on May 15, 1912, to seat the delegates to the State con¬ 
vention that were being contested from Vance, Franklin, and Wake 
Counties who were supporting the Harris faction, which motion was 
carried by from 200 to 300 majority, and directly passed upon the 
merits involved in this controversy. 


MINORITY REPORT. 

FOURTH COXGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. 

To the chairman and members of the Republican National Conven¬ 
tion, Chicago, 111. 

Gentlemen : The undersigned members of the committee on cre¬ 
dentials beg leave to dissent from the report of the majority of the 
members of this committee, and to report in lieu thereof the follow¬ 
ing as to the delegates and alternates from the fourth congressional 
district of North Carolina. 

We report that J. D. Parker and C. M. Bernard, delegates, and 
L. F. Butler and W. F. Bailey, alternates, are entitled to seats in this 
convention, and J. C. L. Harris and J. C. Matthews, who have been 
formally seated as delegates, and Charles D. Wildes and Bland A. 
Mitchell, who have also been seated as alternate delegates in this con¬ 
vention from said fourth congressional district of North Carolina, 
are not entitled to seats in this convention. 

We base our reasons for this report upon the following facts, amply 
sustained by incontrovertible official records and ample sworn testi¬ 
mony of witnesses presented before the committee. 

The said J. D. Parker and C. M. Bernard, delegates, and 0. F. 
Butler and W. F. Bailey, alternates, were regularly and legally 
elected at a convention-of the Republicans of the fourth congressional 
district, legally called under the plan of the Republican Party of 


118 


North Carolina and the United States as a whole, by the executive 
committee of said district, and called to order and presided over by 
John W. Harden, chairman of said executive committee, who has 
been such without question, and that the same is admitted by the 
opponents in their brief and evidence. 

That the fourth North Carolina congressional district is composed 
of the counties of Chatham, Franklin, Johnson, Nash, Vance, and 
Wake. 

That upon roll call of the counties by the secretary of said conven¬ 
tion each county filed its credentials as they were called with the 
said secretary. 

That there was notice of contest given and filed by E. T. Yarbor¬ 
ough, of Franklin County, claiming to be one of the delegates from 
Franklin County; T. T. Hicks, of Vance County, contesting against 
the regularly elected delegates from Vance; and Charles D. Wildes, 
who is claiming a seat as an alternate in this convention as a legally 
elected alternate from the fourth congressional district of North 
Carolina, contested the seats of the legally and regTilarly elected 
delegates from Wake County. 

The chairman of said convention appointed from the uncontesting 
counties of Chatham, Nash, and Johnson, as members of the commit¬ 
tee on credentials, to pass upon the contests, the following gentlemen, 
to wit: R. H. Dixon, of Chatham County; Van B. Carter, of Nash 
County; and Bery Godwin, of Johnson County, 

That the said comimttee on credentials reported in favor, by a 
unanimous vote, of the regularly elected delegates from the counties 
of Franklin, Vance, and Wake. 

That the report of said committee was voted on by said convention, 
each contesting county being voted on separately. On the report of 
the committee as to Franklin County the convention, on roll call, 
voted as follows: Yeas 38, nays 13. The roll call in this instance was 
demanded by J. C. ^latthews, a so-called delegate from the fourth 
congressional district, who has been fraudulently seated in this 
national convention. The chairman declared that part of the report 
of the committee on credentials, as to the contest of Franklin 
County, carried and received. 

The report of the said committee on credentials on a roll-call vote 
as to the contest in Vance County, seating the regular delegates, re¬ 
sulted as follows: Yeas 43, nays 13. Thereupon the chairman de¬ 
clared the report of the committee on credentials as to the contest 
from Vance County carried and received. 


119 


At this point in the proceedings in said convention the contesting 
delegate from Franklin County, E. T. Yarborough, and the 6 con¬ 
testing delegates from Vance; and the 26 contesting delegates from 
V ake County, headed by J. C. L. Harris, who is also one of the dele¬ 
gates frandulently seated in this national convention, bolted said 
district convention, and walked out of the convention hall, and 
thereupon the report of the committee on credentials as to the contest 
applicable to Wake County on a roll-call vote seated the regularly 
elected delegates from AVake County by a vote of 52 to 0. 

This action of the convention made the vote of said convention, 
by seating the 26 delegates from Wake County, a total of 78, who 
remained and participated in the deliberations of the said regular 
and legal district convention, and unanimously elected said J. D. 
Parker and C. AI. Bernard delegates and L. F. Butler and AV. S. 
Bailey alternates to represent said fourth North Carolina congres¬ 
sional district in this national convention. 

That the bolters from said regular district convention, consisting 
of contesting delegates from only three counties in said district, 25 
in number, as shown by the sworn affidavit of A. A^. Dockery, one 
of the bolting faction, met in the basement of a building in Kaleigh 
on ttie 16th day of Alay, two days after the regular convention and 
held a rump convention, at which said rump convention the said 
J. C. L. Harris and J. C. Matthews were elected delegates to this 
convention and C. D. AA^ildes and Bland A. Alitchell were elected 
alternates to this convention and are fraudulently occupying the 
seats of the said J. D. Parker and C. Al. Bernard, delegates, and 
L. F. Butler and AAk S. Bailey, alternates, who are the only regular 
and legally elected delegates from said fourth congressional district 
convention of North Carolina. 

Based upon these findings, we offer as a substitute for the majority 
report of the committee ou credentials of this convention the fol¬ 
lowing resolution: 

Resolved, That J. D. Parker and C. AI. Bernard, delegates, and 
L. F. Butler and W. S. Bailey, alternates, are entitled to their seats 
upon the floor of this convention. 

Hugh T. Halbert 

(And the entire minonty members who signed the other 
dissenting reports). 


120 


MAJORITY REPORT. 

Delegates at Large erom Oklahoma. 

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS ON THE ALTERNATES AT 
LARGE FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. 

It appearing to the committee on credentials tliat the name of 
A. H. Hukland, of Muskogee, and F. J. Amphlett, of Apache, Okla., 
were certified as alternate delegates from the State at large from 
Oklahoma by mistake, and whereas by reason of said mistake the 
said two above-named men were placed on the temporary roll instead 
of William Noble, of McAlester, Okla., and Edward Butler, of 
Durant, Okla., who were the regularly elected alternates; now, there¬ 
fore, to rectify said mistake the committee on credentials hereby 
recommends that A. H. Hukland and F. J. Amphlett be stricken 
from the roll as alternate delegates at large from the State of Okla¬ 
homa and that the names of William Noble, of McAlester, and 
Edward Butler, of Durant, be placed on the permanent roll of this 
convention as alternate delegates at large from the State of Okla¬ 
homa. 

THIRD OKLAHOMA DISTRICT. 

The committee recommends that Joseph A. Gill and J. W. Gilli¬ 
land and their alternates be transferred from the temporary roll as 
delegates from the third district of Oklahoma and be placed on the 
permanent roll. From the evidence submitted and affidavits pro¬ 
duced these delegates are the only lawfully elected delegates from 
this congressional district. The call for the district or congressional 
convention was in strict conformity with the national call. At the 
committee meeting there were 10 members in person present and 
3 represented by proxy from a majority of the 19 counties of the 
district. Mr. W. S. Cochran, the chairman of the committee, 
favored Mr. Roosevelt, although a majority of the members of the 
committee favored Mr. Taft. The chairman, by virtue of the fact 
that he had changed his residence, was no longer a member of the 
committee, but because of his unjust rulings and irregular methods 
of procedure he was deposed. The vote to depose Mr. Cochran stood 
11 to 8, and thereupon Mr. Cochran left the hotel, with six others, 
only one of whom was a regular member of the committee. The 
majority of the committee remained in the hall and reorganized by 
electing a new chairman. They then decided to hold their conven¬ 
tion, and by this convention the delegates now seated were elected. 


The bolters proceeded to hold another convention, which had no 
temporary roll of delegates prepared by the congressional committee. 
There were no credentials to the rump convention from the several 
counties of the district, and the roll was made up by having the 
bystanders come forth and sign the roll. 

SECOND TENNESSEE DISTRICT. 

The committee recommends that iVIessrs. T. A. AVright and John 
J. Jennings, the delegates from the second congressional district of 
Tennessee, and their alternates, be placed upon the permanent roll of 
this convention. The following facts were proven to be true and 
conclusive: 

There have been two Republican organizations in this district, each 
claiming to be the regular Republican organization. AVright and 
Jennings were elected by the organization which was duly recognized 
in 1910 by the Republican national congressional committee as the 
regular Republican organization of said district. It elected Hon. 
R. AV. Austin a Member of Congress, and there can be no question 
that the Austin organization is the one w^hich is entitled to rep¬ 
resentation in the national convention. 

The congressional committee met December 30, 1911, and called a 
district convention to meet March 9 at the courthouse in Knoxville. 
The action of this committee was unanimous on all questions. The 
district is composed of 10 counties. Due notice was given of the 
congressional convention. 

AVhen the convention met March 9 delegations from 5 of the 10 
counties reported no contests. Contests were reported in 2 coun¬ 
ties, under a mistaken apprehension of facts, and were abandoned. 
This made 59 delegates out of a total of 108 possible in the conven¬ 
tion who were entirely uncontested. 

The contests from the three other counties were referred by the 
congressional committee to the convention itself. Under party law 
and authority in Tennessee the congressional committee has the 
authority to make up the temporary roll of the convention, but in 
the case of these three contests the entire matter was referred to the 
convention. This left 49 delegates whose right to seats in the con¬ 
vention was held in suspense. 

After the temporary organization of the convention a committee 
on credentials was appointed and retired from the hall to hear the 
contests. ’Instead of presenting their case to the committee on 
credentials, the contestants from these three counties abandoned 


their contests aiul held a boltin**; convention, having refused to attend 
the delegated convention or submit their contests to the convention. 
The delegates from all the counties were fully represented in the 
regular delegate convention. The connnittee on credentials there¬ 
upon made a rei)ort, seating Kepuhlicans from these three counties 
claiming to have been regularly elected. Wlieii the other contestants 
from these three counties refused to submit their case to the creden¬ 
tials committee they lost whatever right they had to seats in the 
convention. The delegations from two counties which were reported 
for Koosevelt remained in the regular convention and took part in 
its proceedings. T. A. Wright and John J. Jennings were elected 
delegates to Chicago by this, the only regular Republican convention 
held in the second Tennessee district. 

After the bolters had held their convention on ^larch 9, they real¬ 
ized their action was not regular and caused to be resurrected a 
remnant of what was known as the old Hale congressional committee, 
which had been discredited and repudiated by the Republican con¬ 
gressional committee in 1910 and through that repudiated connnittee 
called a new congressional convention. Seven of the ten counties in 
the district absolutely refused to elect delegates to this rump con¬ 
vention or sent only 28 votes out of a total of 108. 

John C. Honk and 11. R. Lindsay, contestants, have no claim 
whatever to seats in the national convention, for the reason that they 
took part in the county mass conventions called by order of the 
Austin congressional committee, the regular committee. Having 
thereby recognized the Austin organization as the regular Republican 
organization in the district and having taken ])art in the county con¬ 
ventions (‘ailed by said organization, they are thereby estoi)ped from 
attem])ting to deny the legality of the Austin organization and had 
no right to organize or take part in any other organization acting in 
conflict therewith. 


DELEGATES EKOM TEXAS AT LARGE. 

The committee recommends that H. F. ^MacGregor. W. C. Aver- 
ille, C. K. :\lcDowell, J. E. Lutz, J. E. Elgin, W. H. Love, W. .H. 
McDonald, and G. AV. Burroughs and their alternates be placed 
on the permanent roll of this convention. 

The facts in regard to this are as follows: 

The issue in Texas was whether the sentiment of the majority 


123 


ol Kepublican^ in this State should prevail, or whether the boss- 
ridden machine should be sustained. A primary election held hi 
strict accordance with the Terrell election law of Texas showed 
that public sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of President Taft. 

In the M estern part of the State there are over 100 counties which 
cast aiiproximately 2,000 votes at the last general election. Sev¬ 
eral of these counties did not cast a single Republican vote. Each 
one of these counties had the same voting strength in the State 
convention as a county that had cast as many votes as all these 
counties put together. It further appeared from proof submitted 
and affidavits offered in evidence that the organization in those 
sparsely settled counties was mostly on paper. It was the custom 
to send blank credentials to some of the counties and these creden¬ 
tials, after being signed by two Republicans as chairman and secre¬ 
tary, without holding a primary election or a county convention, 
were then returned to the State machine. Throwing out these rotten 
boroughs, Taft controlled the State convention by a large majority. 
The State executive committee, which was controlled by Cecil 
Lyon because of the proxies which he had procured, refused to ex¬ 
hibit any credentials or permit the imspection of the temporary roll 
of delegates to the State convention. 

There was also a postal card exhibited which had been circulated 
throughout the entire State on which Cecil Lyon, over his signature, 
raised the Lily White issue, and stated that the time had come when 
the voters were to decide whether the negro or the white man Avas ^o 
nile in the State of Texas. 

Col. Lyon took charge of the Republican organization in the State 
of Texas shortly after 1896, when McKinley received 167,000 votes. 
Since that date under his leadership the Republican vote in the 
State steadily decreased with few exceptions, and at the last State 
election, in the year 1910, there were only 26,000 votes cast in the 
State, a decrease of 141,000 in 16 years. The Lyon machine is made 
up largely of postmasters and other Federal officials or their rela¬ 
tions, and is entirely run for selfish purposes. There has been no 
attempt within the last 15 years to build up the Republican Party 
in the State. Affidavits were produced signed by many county 
clerks shoAving that there Avas no Republican county organization 
in existence at the time Col. Lyon claimed that delegates from those 
counties Avere chosen for the State convention. The national com¬ 
mittee decided that the Taft delegates represented the real Republi¬ 
can sentiment of the State of Texas, and that the convention AAffiich 




124 


elected them was justified then in pursuing the course that it did in 
order to overthrow a boss-ridden machine. These Taft delegates, 
who placed in proof of the regularity of their election in accordance 
with the national call of the committee, and who endeavored by 
their convention to reflect and give effect to public sentiment in the 
State, were declared the duly and regularly elected delegates to the 
national convention, and this committee after full hearing confirms 
the action of the national committee. 

T. H. DEVINE, Chairman. 

MINORITY REPORT. 

We, the undersigned, members of the committee on credentials of 
the Republican national committee, hereby submit the following 
report: 

(1) W© protest against the action of the following members of the 
committee in sitting upon and participating in the actions of the 
committee, Mr. J. C. Adams, of Arizona; Mr. C. A. Warnken, of 
Texas; and Mr. W. T. Dovell, of Washington, for the reason that 
each of these men was elected by entire delegations whose seats are 
contested. 

(2) We protest against the action of the following men: Mr. J. C. 
Adams, of Arizona; Mr. C. A. Warnken, of Texas; and Mr. W. T. 
Dovell, of Washington, from participating in and voting upon the 
questions in any of the contests on the ground that they are in effect 
sitting as judges in their own cases. 

(3) We protest against Mr. Thomas H. Devine, of Colorado; Mr. 
Fred W. Estabrook, of New Hampshire; Mr. Henry Blun, jr., of 
Georgia; Mr. L. B. Moseley, of Mississippi; and Mr. L. P. Shackle¬ 
ford, of Alaska, sitting as members of this committee, for the reason 
that they were members of the national committee and participated 
in its deliberations and actions. 

(4) We find that the following persons reported upon by the ma¬ 
jority of members of this committee are not entitled to seats in this 
convention and should not be placed upon its permanent roll: 

TEXAS. 

Delegates at large.—U. F. MacGregor, W. C. Averille, C. K. McDowell, J. E. 
Lutz, J. E. Elgin, W. H. Love, W. M. McDonald, G. W. Burroughs, and their 
alternates. 

(5) And we further report that in place of the said persons the 
following persons were duly elected and are legally entitled to seats 


125 


in this convention and should be seated and accredited to their re¬ 
spective States and districts, as follows: 

TEXAS. 

At large .—Cecil A. Lyon, Ed. C. Lasater, H. L. Borden, J. E. Williams, Lewis 
Lindsay, J. O. Terrell, J. N. McCormack, Sam Davidson, and their alternates. 

The minority of the credentials committee finds that the delegates 
at large from the State of Texas, headed by Cecil A. Lyon, are the 
duly elected delegates to the national convention, in that they have 
complied in every particular with the rules of the national com¬ 
mittee and the laws of the State of Texas, and submits that the evi¬ 
dence adduced before the credentials committee, and prior to that 
before the national committee, presented the following facts, each 
and every one of which is substantiated in full by affidavits in every 
particular. 

There are 249 counties in the State of Texas. There are in that 
State some counties which are unorganized either under the laws of 
the State of Texas or under the rules of the Republican State com¬ 
mittee of that State, and further that some counties did not comply 
with the rules of the State committee which required that sworn 
credentials be filed not later than May 14, 1912. We find, however, 
that 209 counties have complied in eveiy respect with the call of the 
national committee and with the laws of the State of Texas, and 
that these credentials properly sworn to by the permanent chairmen 
of said conventions were presented in evidence before the national 
committee and the credentials committee. We find that, in compli¬ 
ance with the laws of the State of Texas, which are in accord 
with the rules of the national committee, the State committee 
of Texas assembled in Fort Worth, Tex., on ^londay. May 27, and 
that contests from 17 counties were reported. This statement was 
substantiated by the sworn statement of the acting secretary of the 
State committee, which affidavit was presented in evidence. The 
State committee referred these contests, to four subcommittees, Avhich 
were composed of adherents of Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Taft, and that 
extended hearings were given these contests. The subcommittees re¬ 
ported to the State committees as a whole, and the reports of all sub¬ 
committees were unanimous except one, and in that subcommittee 
the Taft member of the subcommittee presented a minority report 
differing on two counties with the finding of the majority of the 
subcommittee. 


12G 


Two members of the State committee then gave notice of protest 
on nine counties, and these protested nine counties were referred to 
a subcommittee composed of Roosevelt and Taft members, and that 
this subcommittee held two meetings, and though the Taft membei 
of the subcommittee gave verbal notice to the members of the State 
committee, who had filed said protest, that the subcommittee was in 
session, no person appeared at any time to contest the right before 
said committee of the persons whose credentials had been reported 
as regular by the secretary of the State committee. 

The State committee then completed the temporary roll of the 
State convention, signed by 29 of the 31 members of the State com¬ 
mittee, 3 of whom were supporters of President Taft. Two members 
of the State committee then gave notice that a minority report would 
be presented to the State convention and the committee adjourned, 
all of which statement was substantiated before the national com¬ 
mittee and the credentials committee. 

The State convention met at 11 a. m. on ^lay 28, 1912, and the 
report of the State committee was presented, but no minority report 
was ever presented at any time, and this fact is substantiated by 
sworn statement of the secretary of the State convention, which facts 
were presented to the credentials committee. 

There were present and voting in the State convention 176 out of 
a possible 209 counties in the State convention, which elected dele¬ 
gates to this convention. 

We find that a rump convention was held which elected delegates 
to this convention and which have been seated by the national com¬ 
mittee ; and we find further, that by evidence presented before us that 
not to exceed 2 members of the State committee could have been 
present at said meeting nor could there have been represented more 
than 33 out of the 249 counties. The rump convention never called 
a roll of the convention, as is shown by the newspaper reports and 
by the affidavit of the reporters who reported said convention. We 
further find that speakers on the floor of said rump convention 
recognized the Republican State convention of Texas, then in session 
in another part of town, in their speeches on the floor of said rump 
convention; and further find from said newspaper reports that the 
business of said rump convention was participated in by people who 
were not even delegates to the convention, and that no attempt was 
made to separate delegates from spectators. 

We also find that after it assembled the said rump convention 
attempted to change the basis of representation in said rump con- 


127 


vention, in defiance of the laws of the State of Texas, all of which 
is fixed under paragraph 121 as amended of the election laws of the 
State of Texas, that one delegate vote for each 500 votes or major 
fraction thereof cast for the party’s candidate for governor in the 
preceding general election. 

M e further find that among the delegates at large seated from the 
State of Texas on this temporary roll H. F. MacGregor, who was 
one of the organizers and was State chairman of what was known 
as the Lily-White organization, which denied to any negro the 
right to participate, and that said MacGregor at least appeared before 
one national convention demanding seats for his Lily-White Party 
as delegates in said national conventioig all of which was denied 
him. AVe further find that another delegate at large seated the 
national committee is J. E. Elgin, who has been first a Democrat, 
then a Greenbaeker, then a Populist, and then a Kepublican, who. 
since the first of this year, stated in a public interview that if Taft 
were the nominee he would support the Democratic ticket. We 
further find a C. K. McDowell seated as a delegate at large in this 
convention, at present the Democratic county judge of Valverde 
County, Tex., and was elected on the Democratic ticket and is now 
a candidate for reelection subject to the action of the Democratic 
primaries. 'We further find Mk M. ^IcDonald also seated as a dele¬ 
gate at large in this convention, who has on two occasions bolted the 
State ticket, and as late as the last gubernatorial election in Texas 
advocated the nomination of the Democratic candidate for governor. 
In conclusion, we find that every statement presented to the cre¬ 
dentials committee was substantiated by affidavits, shows compli¬ 
ance with the mles of the national committee and the laws of the 
State of Texas and the Republican State committee of Texas, and 
we therefore recommend that the delegates at large from Texas 
lieaded by Cecil A. Lyon be placed upon the roll of this convention as 
the delegates at large from the State of Texas. 

.John Boyd Avis, New Jersey; W. S. Lauder, North Da¬ 
kota; Jesse M. Libby, Blaine; Clency St. Clair. 
Idaho; Robert R. McCormick, Illinois; John J. 
Sullivan, Ohio; A. V. Swift, Oregon; D. J. Norton, 
Oklahoma; Lex N. Mitchell, Pennsylvania; H. E. 
Sackett, Nebraska: Hugh T. Halbert, Minnesota. 


128 


MINORITY REPORT. 

Unable to agree with the majority report or the other minority 
report of the committee on credentials the undersigned member of 
the committee submits the following minority report: 

The facts in the contest from, the State of Texas differ from those 
of any other contest. 

In much more than a majority of the contests presented by the 
Roosevelt forces, which occupied the attention of the national com¬ 
mittee for days, the vote was unanimous in seating the Taft dele¬ 
gates. In other cases, involving the smaller part of the contests, 
there was room for doubt, and in our judgment, in part, the Taft 
delegates have been rightfully seated and, in part, the Roosevelt 
delegates have been wrongfully denied their seats. 

For example, it appears that in the thirteenth Indiana district 
the Taft forces elected the chairman and regularly organized the 
convention by the narrow margin of one-half vote. Thereupon the 
Roosevelt delegates created such noise and confusion, lasting for 
hours, that the transaction of business was impossible. It appears^ 
on the other hand, that the Taft forces were enabled to transact the 
necessary business and elect their delegates. The opposition to the 
proceedings, resulting in the election of the Taft delegates, was noth¬ 
ing less than a deliberate attempt to create a state of anarchy, and 
under the circumstances we do not feel that the Roosevelt delegates 
were entitled to seats against the Taft delegates. 

In the Washington case the Taft delegates were elected at the 
regularly appointed time and place To effect this, however, it is 
claimed they barred the windows and doors, and threw a cordon of 
police around the building to prevent the entrance of the Roosevelt 
delegates. It fairly appears from the evidence that the Roosevelt 
delegates excluded from the hall constituted a majority of the lawful 
delegates, and they subsequently organized and held a convention 
at which 14 Roosevelt delegates were elected. 

Including all the cases so legitimately in doubt, the Roosevelt 
forces have only asked that the right to vote be denied to 72 con¬ 
tested delegates. 

The time allowed for consideration of contests, even under the 
liberal practice of the credentials committee, can not possibly afford 
opportunity to determine the full merits of individual cases. 

While probably many of these contests should be decided in favor 
of the Taft forces, there are, in my judgment, enough which should 


129 


rightfully be decided against them to deprive either the Taft or the 
Roosevelt forces of the majority necessary to the action of this con¬ 
vention. The manner in which these contests have been presented 
and decided, inherent in the present system, should not be permitted 
to prevent juslice being done so far as the merits may fairly be de¬ 
termined and the control of the convention left in the hands of 
delegates whose right to seats in the convention has been clearly 
proven. 

In my opinion the Texas contests should be decided in favor of 
the contestants. In the contests on delegates at large it is clearly 
established that the statutes of Texas, the party regulations of that 
State and of the Republican national convention were fully complied 
with. The contestants had a large majority in the State convention. 
Contests were duly heard and, with one exception, unanimously 
determined. There was no evidence of intimidation or use of force. 
The entire proceedings of the convention were regular and orderly. 
The contests with regard to some district delegates present other 
features, but in the main the same situation is presented. Charges 
and counter-charges of bad motives have been made before the na¬ 
tional committee and before this committee and this convention, 
^lost of these are unfounded. In our opinion the Texas case stands 
out conspicuously as the one in which expediency is the controlling 
factor in the decision of the majority. 

Neither Taft nor Roosevelt have enough lawfully elected delegates 
to control this convention. The seating of Taft delegates from 
Texas is clearly an assumption by the minority—i. e., the minority 
without Texas—of the rights of the majority for the purpose of such 
control. 

I recommend and insist that justice, fairne&s, and party success 
all demand the seating of the contesting delegates from Texas. 

Samuel H. Cady, Wisconsin. 

MAJORITY REPORT. 

FIRST TEXAS DISTRICT. 

The committee recommends that Phil E. Baer and Richard B. 
Harrison and their alternates be placed on the permanent roll of the 
convention. 

The committee find and so report to this convention that the 
above-named delegates were duly elected by the regularly called 
convention, and that after certain voters had participated in this 


9 —D 



130 


reoularly called convention, they, constituting only a small minority 
of the convention, withdrew and held another convention and 
elected other delegates who have contested the seats of the above- 
named delegates. After a full hearing, your committee report and 
recommend that the above-named delegates now on the temporary 
roll, namely, Phil E. Baer and Kichard B. Harrison be transferred 
to and placed upon the permanent roll. 

T. H. Devine, Chairman. 

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

The contestants here claimed to have been elected by a conven¬ 
tion held at Nacogdoches on May 17, 1912. The evidence disclosed 
conclusively that this alleged convention consisted of six men, who 
met in the mayor’s office in that city behind locked doors. This 
appeared upon the testimony of the mayor himself, who sought 
to gain admission to his own office, by that of the local constable 
in attendance at the city hall and the names of the |Dersons present 
were given in the affidavit of the stenographer to whom records of 
this assembly were dictated. 

The convention which we believe unquestionably to have been 
the regular convention was in session and very largely attended 
in the city hall at the time this “rump” was being held in the 
mayor’s office. Affidavits from the judge for the county, mayor of 
the city, the city attorney, as well as of the officers of the regular 
convention, showed that its proceedings were in all respects in ac¬ 
cordance with party and parliamentary usage. It remained in ses¬ 
sion for upward of three hours and completed the business for 
which it was called in every respect. 

The circumstances preceding the convention so far as important 
are as follows: 

The regularly elected district chairman was appointed to office 
and, in accordance with the Texas law, resigned his chairmanship; 
The chairman of the State-central committee appointed a new chair¬ 
man in his place. Disregarding this action, the secretary of the 
committee, upon the written request of the majority of the commit¬ 
tee, called a meeting which was held at Beaumont, Tex., on April 
16. 1912, and C. L. Rutt was elected chairman, and a district con¬ 
vention to nominate delegates to the national convention, at Chi¬ 
cago was called to meet at Nacogdoches on ^lay 17, 1912, and due 
notice was given thereof by publication and otherwise. In the 
meantime, E. G. Christian, who has been appointed, as above stated, 


131 


by the chairman of the State central committee, without calling 
the committee together, called a convention to meet in Lufkin, 
Tex., May 16, 1912. No publication of this call was made, and 
Mr. Christian, again without calling the committee together, 
changed the date of his call to May 17 and the place at Nacog¬ 
doches. No publication of this change was made. The congres¬ 
sional district committee met on the 17th of May before tne as¬ 
sembling of the convention, i\Ir. Christian being present with them, 
and !Mr. Rutt presided, and made up the temporary roll of the con¬ 
vention and nominated Mr. George W. Eason for temporary chair¬ 
man. No contest was presented, though notice was given that a 
contest from Jefferson County would be presented to the committee 
on credentials. 

The convention was called together by the chairman of the dis¬ 
trict committee and elected Mr. Eason as temporary chairman and 
appointed a committee on credentials. That committee reported 
the roll of delegates, settling the dispute in Jefferson County in 
favor of the delegation headed by Col. W. C. Averille. This report 
was accepted by the convention, and at this point the delegates from 
5 out of the 14 counties retired from the hall and repaired to the 
mayor’s office, where the ^haimp” convention already described 
was held. 

It was not contended that the convention originally called by Mr. 
Christian alone had an}^ validity, and we find that there was no jus¬ 
tification for the bolt from the convention regularly called and held. 

Accordingly, we report that C. L. Rutt and George W. Eason, 
delegates, and H. M. Smith and R. E. Troutman, alternates, be 
given seats in this convention and the report of the national com¬ 
mittee on this contest be confirmed. 

The vote in the national committee on this district contest was 
unanimous, and there was no request for a roll call. 

T. H. Devine, Chairman. 

THIRD DISTRICT OF‘TEXAS. 

In this district there was a contest between the Taft and the 
Roosevelt delegates. The national committee decided in favor of 
the Roosevelt delegates. The Taft delegates have made no protest 
against this action of the national committee. Your committee 
recommends that the Roosevelt delegates from this district be placed 
on the permanent roll. 


T. II. Devine, Chairman. 


132 


FOURTH TEXAS DISTRICT. 

The committee recommends that A. L. Dyer and M. 0. Sharp, 
delegates from the fourth congressional district of Texas, and their 
alternates, D. A. Ryan and F. C. Allen, be transferred from the 
temporary roll of this convention to the permanent roll. The fol¬ 
lowing facts, proven conclusively to this committee, show their ab¬ 
solute title to seats as delegates in this convention. 

The fourth congressional district of Texas consists of five coun¬ 
ties, each entitled to one vote in the congressional convention. 
Only one county, Rains, elected an uncontested delegate. There 
were two sets of delegates from Colin, Grayson, Hunt, and Fannin 
Counties. In the call, which was regularly and properly issued for 
this convention, no provision was made for the hearing of con¬ 
tests or the making of a temporary roll of the convention. Repre¬ 
sentatives from each of the four counties sending contesting dele¬ 
gations made an effort to appear before the congressional commit¬ 
tee and present their claims for seats in the convention. The con¬ 
gressional committee arbitrarily refused to hear anybody. The 
contesting delegates then appeared before the credentials commit¬ 
tee, but this committee refused to examine the evidence. The con¬ 
testants then were permitted to make a statement on the fioor of 
the convention, but no vote was permitted to be taken as to the 
merits of their claims. Having exhausted every effort to secure a 
hearing, the four contesting delegations, together with the only 
uncontested delegation in the convention, withdrew to another place 
and held a convention. 

Your committee has examined the evidence relating to the delega¬ 
tions in the four counties wherein contests existed, and find that in 
Gollin County the control of the county turned upon one precinct 
where the Taft men were in undisputed control and elected delegates 
who were refused seats in the county convention. Had the properly 
elected delegates been seated, Collin County would have elected an 
uucontested Taft delegation to the congressionaFconvention. 

In Grayson County, in precinct No. 1, by the aid of State militia, 
the negro Republicans were kept out of the convention until all 
business had been transacted. In precinct No. 2, delegates were 
seated who had been elected improperly by a ^fimmp” convention, 
and the Taft delegates elected according to the call were not seated. 
Properly seated, Grayson County would have elected a Taft delega¬ 
tion to the congressional convention. 


133 


In Hunt County a largely similar set of circumstances prevented 
the seating of Taft delegates, although Taft sentiment largely pre¬ 
dominated. In Fannin County the Taft delegates were regularly 
elected, but were refused seats in the congressional convention, which 
seated delegates elected by a mass convention. 

Your committee finds that the said M. 0. Sharp and A. L. Dyer 
were elected delegates by a congressional convention in which sat 
the only uncontested delegation of the district and the delegates who 
were lawfully elected to the congressional convention, and that these 
men rightly and justly are entitled to these seats. 

T. H. Devine, Chairman. 

FIFTH TEXAS DISTRICT. 

The committee on credentials recommends that Eugene Marshall 
and Harry Beck and their alternates be placed upon the permanent 
roll of the convention. 

The committee gave a full hearing, both to the contestees and the 
contestants, and the facts developed are as follows: 

The convention, at which the above-named delegates were elected, 
was regularly called by the congressional chairman of this district. 
All the five counties in this (fifth) congressional district were repre¬ 
sented by delegates. After the convention was assembled and called 
to order the delegates from one county, Bosque County, separated 
themselves from the other delegates. The delegates, however, from 
the four remaining counties participated in the regular convention 
and duly elected the above-named delegates. 

We therefore report that Eugene Marshall and Harry Beck, whose 
names were placed and are on the temporary roll of this convention, 
were duly elected, and recommend that they be transferred to and 
placed upon the permanent roll of this convention. 

T. H. Devine, Chairman. 

SEVENTH TEXAS DISTRICT. 

The committee recommends that J. H. Hawley and H. L. Price, 
delegates, and their alternates, D. W. Wilson and T. G. W. Tarver, 
be placed on the permanent roll of the convention. The committee 
find and report that the above-named delegates and alternates were 
duly elected by the regularly called convention of that district after 
publication was made as required by the call of the national con¬ 
vention. 


134 


The committee further find that the contesting delegation was 
elected by n convention held without authority of law. The facts 
of this matter are as follows: 

The seventh congressional district of Texas is composed of the 
following counties: Anderson, Chambers, Galveston, Houston, Lib¬ 
erty, Polk, San Jacinto, and Trinity. The counties of Polk, San 
Jacinto, and Trinity were without proper party organization and are 
what is known in Texas as unorganized counties and not entitled to 
participate in convention under the laws of Texas. The reg-ular 
convention was called to meet in Galveston on April 9, 1912. The 
executive committee met prior to the meeting of the convention to 
make up the temporary roll. 

Certain persons claiming to represent the three unorganized coun¬ 
ties, namely, Polk, San Jacinto, and Trinity, asked to have their 
names placed on the temporary roll. Inasmuch as none of these 
counties were properly organized according to the laws of Texas and 
inasmuch as these representatives had no credentials showing that 
they were entitled to represent the said counties, it was decided by 
the executive committee not to place them on the temporary roll. 
Thereupon Hr. Clinton, from Houston County, and the representa¬ 
tive from the three unorganized counties, withdrew from the meeting 
during the session of the executive committee and t)roceeded to 
organize another convention, wholly without authority, and sent a 
contesting delegation to this convention. When the convention met 
a committee on credentials was appointed, which passed on all con¬ 
tests, but these representatives of the three unorganized counties did 
not present their claims to this committee, nor did they appear in 
the regular convention to present their claims thereto, although re¬ 
peatedly in\'ited to do so. 

T. H. Devine, Chairman. 

EIGHTH TEXAS DISTRICT. 

Jhe committee on credentials report that they have examined the 
eAidence submitted in the contest in the eighth congressional district 
of Texas, and from their finding of the facts, recommend that C. A 
H arnken and Spencer Graves and their alternates, E. L. Angler 
and David Abner, be transferred from the temporary roll to the per¬ 
manent roil of this convention. Your committee is satisfied that 

these men are the lawfully and regularly elected delegates to this 
convention. 


T. H. Devine, Chairman. 


135 


NINTH TEXAS DISTRICT. 

The coiniiiittee recouniieiKl that Covey Hughes and ^lack'M. 
Rodgers and their alternates he placed upon the permanent roll of 
this convention. The above-named delegates and their alternates 
are now npon the temporary roll of the convention. 

After a full hearing your committee they report the facts to be 
as follows: 

The congressional chairman refused, in writing, to call a meeting 
of his congressional executive committee for the purpose of calling 
a congressional convention, and, as the time limit required by the 
Re})uhlican national committee was about to ex})ire, the majority 
of the congressional executive committee duly called a convention 
which was regularly held at the city of \dctoria, a central location 
of this (ninth) district. 

Eleven counties out of fifteen responded to the call and partici¬ 
pated in this convention and duly elected the above-named dele¬ 
gates and tlieir alternates. 

The committee determined that tliis was the regular convention 
and recommend that the above-named delegates, Covey M. Hughes 
and Hack H. Rodgers, be transferred from the temporary roll and 
])laced ui)on the permanent roll of tliis convention. 

T. H. Devine, Chairman. 


TENTH TEXAS DISTRICT. 

ddie committee recommends that H. M. Hoore and F. K. Welch, 
delegates from the tenth Texas di.'^trict, and their alternates be trans¬ 
ferred from the temjiorarv roll of this convention to the permanent 
roll. Tlie following facts were conclusively proved: 

H. M. Moore and F. L. Welch, delegates, and L. R. Whiting and 
J. M. Clark, alternates, as contestants for seats in the Rei)ublican 
national convention, claim that they are the rightfully elected dele¬ 
gates and entitled to recogniti(»n. Tlie election laws of Texas do not 
provide for congres.sional conventions for the election of delegates to 
the national convention. The authority and call of the district con¬ 
vention were in accordance with the national call of December 11, 
1911. Tlie call was made unanimous on the part of the executive 
committee of the district. The committee in its action was unani¬ 
mous, and Wblliam H. Taft was unanimously indorsed as the choice 
of ."^aid committee for the Repultlicaii nomination. 


136 


On the llth of May, 1912, the date set for the district convention, 
there was lield a meeting of the executive committee prior to the 
regular convention. The contesting credentials from Lee, Travis, 
and Washington Counties were refused in the temporary organiza¬ 
tion, and upon the question of irregularity of election the delegates 
from Hays County were refused seats in the temporary organization. 
The vote stood four counties to four, and the chairman, H. ^1. 
Moore, casting the deciding vote. The motion to seat Hays County 
was reconsidered by motion of William Anderson, of Bastrop County, 
and upon the vote being taken, Bastrop County changing its vote 
to seat the Hays County delegation, resulted in five for and three 
against. 

Upon motion for a temporary chairman a Roosevelt delegate and 
a Taft delegate were placed in nomination. The roll call showed five 
to three for the Roosevelt delegate, who was declared the choice of 
the convention for temporary chairman, the ballot being the same 
as in the case to admit Hays County delegates. The executive com¬ 
mittee then adjourned, and the convention was called to order by 
H. M. Moore, district chairman. The finding of the executive com¬ 
mittee was announced with reference to the seating of delegates and 
announcement was made of a violation of instructions by D. H. Ken- 
nerly, proxy for M. R. Hoxie, chairman of Lee County. 

As the committee had seated Roosevelt delegates, they adopted 
the report of the executive committee and the Taft delegates with¬ 
drew, and in the same building went into organization by the elec¬ 
tion of a temporary chairman and temporar^^ secretary. The com¬ 
mittee on credentials was appointed, and the attendance of the dele¬ 
gates noted. The committee on resolutions made its report to favor 
President Taft and delegates were instructed for President Taft’s 
renomination. The committee reported delegates from six of the 
eight counties at the Taft convention, with additional delegates from 
their respective counties. 

The delegates at the Roosevelt convention represented counties 
in which there was an overwhelming Taft sentiment, and these dele¬ 
gates were understood to be in accord with this sentiment. Had 
William Anderson, the delegate of Bastrop County, and D. H. Ken- 
nerly, proxy for M. R. Hoxie, chairman of Lee County, properly 
represented their counties, these contestants would have been the 
regularly elected delegates from the tenth Texas district. D. H. 
Kennerly and M. R. Hoxie were uninstructed delegates from Lee 
County. 


137 


Letters submitted herewith, as well as affidivats, show that Wil¬ 
liam Anderson was in full accord with the Taft voters and that he 
admitted that he was in error when he voted to seat the delegates 
from Hays County. William Anderson is a negro school-teacher, 
and the Roosevelt delegate for whom he voted as temporary chair¬ 
man of the convention is a member of the school board in the city 
where Mr. Anderson teaches. 

Letters and affidavits submitted herewith show that D. H. Ken- 
nerly and M. R. Hoxie favored President Taft, from which it is 
evident that Mr. Kennerly by voting in the Roosevelt connvention 
violated his trust reposed in him by said Iloxie. 

With reference to Hays County, the entire proceedings were illegal 
and void. The delegation from Hays County consequently should 
not have been taken into consideration in connection with the con¬ 
gressional convention, as shown by the argument submitted under 
the title of Hays County. 

Therefore, if Hays County delegates were refused admission be¬ 
cause of illegality and had not both William Anderson and D. H. 
Kennerly betrayed their trust there would have been no contesting 
delegation in the tenth district. 

T. H. Devine, Chairman. 

FOURTEENTH TEXAS DISTRICT. 

The committee recommends that J. M. Oppeuheimer and John 
Hall, whose seats are being contested by Harrison and Penniger, be 
seated. The committee finds and reports to this convention that 
the above-named delegates were duly and properly elected by the 
regularly called convention and they are entitled to represent the 
fourteenth district, and recommends that said Oppenheimer and 
Hall and their alternates be placed on the permanent roll of this 
convention. 

T. H. Devine, Chairman. 

MINORITY REPORT. 

AVe, the undersigned members of the committee on credentials of 
the Republican national convention, hereby submit the following 
report: 

(1) We protest against the action of the following members of 
the committee in sitting upon and participating in the actions of 
the committee, Mr. J. C. Adams, of Arizona; Mr. C. A. Warnken, of 


138 


Texas, and Mr. W. T. Dovell, of Wasliin^toii, for the reason that 
each of these men were elected hy entire delegations whose seat^ aie 
contested. 

(2) AVe protest against tlie action of the following men, Air. .1. C. 
Adams, of Arizona; Mr. C. A. Warnken, of Texas, and Mr. W. T. 
Dovell, of AVashington, from ])articipating and voting upon the 
questions in any of the contests on the ground that they are in effect 
sitting as judges in their own cases. 

(3) AVe protest against Air. Thomas lit Devine, of Colorado; Air. 
Fred. AV. Estabrook, of New Hampshire, and Air. Henry Finn, jr., 
of Georgia, Air. L. B. Aloseley, of Alississippi, and Air. L. P. Shack¬ 
elford, of Alaska, sitting as members of this committee, for the 
reasons that they were members of the national committee and par¬ 
ticipated in its deliberations and actions. 

(4) AAA find that the following ])ersons re})orted upon by the 
majority of the members of this committee are not entitled to their 
seats in this convention and should not l)e placed upon its perma¬ 
nent roll: 

TEXAS. 

Fourth (tistrivt delegates. —A. L. Dyer and M. (). Shari) and their alternates. 

Fifth district delegates. —Eugene Marshall and Harry Beek and their alter¬ 
nates. 

Fercnth district delegates. —.T. H. Hawley and 11. L. Briee and their alter¬ 
nates. 

Fighth district delegates. —C. A. Warnken and Spencer Grave's and their 
alternates. 

Xinth district delegates. —C. M. Hughes and M. M. Bodgers and tlieir alter¬ 
nates. 

Tenth district delegates. —H. M. jMoore and F. L. Welch and their alternates. 

Eleventh district delegates. —T. .J. Darling and B. (4. Ward and their alter¬ 
nates. 

Fourteenth district delegates. —.T. :M. Oppenheinier and .John Hall and their 
alternates. 

(3) And we further report that in place of the said persons the 
following persons were duly elected and are legally entitled to seats 
in this convention and should Ite seated and accredited to their re- 
s])ective States and districts, as follows: 

TEXAS. 

Fourth district delegates. — 11. IT. Crahh and It. F. Akridge and their alter¬ 
nates. 

Fifth district delegates.—W. B. Franks and (). E. Schow and their alternates. 

Seventh district delegates.—(1. W. Burkitt, sr.. and i\ A. Clinton and their 
alternates. 


139 


Eighth disti'ict (Ictcgutex. —AV. A. Alattliaei and E. AA\ Atkinson and tlieir 
alternates. 

Xinth district delegates. —J. AI. Haller and F. 11. Kortli and their alternates. 

Tenth district delegates. —AI. AI. Tnrney and II. F. Stiles and their alternates. 

Eleventh district delegates. — C. C. Baker and J. AA’. Focke and their alter¬ 
nates. 

Fourteenth district delcfiates. —F. X. Harrison and Hohert Pennij^er and 
their alternates. 

Lex N.^IiTCiiELL.Peiiiisylvaiiia. 

J. Boaa) Aa’is, New Jersey. 

John J. Spllivan, Ohio. 

II. E. Sackett, Nebra.<ka. 

Kobert R. McCoraiick, Illinois. 

MAJORITY REPORT. 

FIFTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

Ill this district there was a contest between the Taft and the 
Roosevelt delegates. The national coininittee decided in favor of 
the RooseA^lt delegates. The Taft delegates have made no protest 
against this action of the national committee. Your committee 
recommends that the Roosevelt delegates from this district be placed 
on the permanent roll. 

T. 11. Devine, Cluiinnan. 

FIFTH VIROINIA DISTRICT. 

The committee recommends that S. Floyd Landreth and A. H. 
Staples, delegates from the fifth congressional district of Virginia, 
and their alternates be transferred from the temporary roll of this 
coiiA^ention to tlie permanent roll. 

The following facts, proA^en conclusively to this committee, show 
their absolute title to seats in this convention: 

The said S. Floyd Landreth and A. H. Sta])les and their alter¬ 
nates were selected by a delegated coiiA^ention of the Rejniblicans of 
the fifth district of Virginia, which met at Rocky Mount, Ahi., on 
March 9, 1912; that said coiiA’ention was trul\^ representative of the 
voters of that district and was assembled in response to the call of the 
only Reiiublican organization in said district. 

That the delegation composing said coin’ention Avere duly selected 
and not contested in any particular. 

The contestants selected in this district were selected by a mass 


Hugh T. Halbert, Minnesota. 
Chas. 11. CoAVLES, North Carolina. 
Wai. Noble, proxy, Oklahoma. 
A. Savifp, Oregon. 


140 


meeting called without authority from any organization and was not 
representative in its make-up in this, but a small part of the counties 
and cities in said district were represented in said mass meeting. 

There was no discrimination in this district against the colored 
man. 

MAJORITY REPORT. 

WASHINGTON CONTESTS. 

The committee on credentials reports as follows relative to the 
contests from the State of Washington: 

DELEGATES AT LARGE. 

Under a call regularly issued by the Republican State committee, 
delegates from the various counties of the State of Washington were 
selected to attend a State convention to be held at Aberdeen, in that 
State, on the 15th day of May, 1912. As soon as a Taft delegation 
was named in any county the Roosevelt forces initiated a contest 
therein until something over 50 per cent of all the delegates to the 
State convention were contested. 

By direction of the State committee the various county chairmen 
and chairmen of contested delegations forwarded to the State com¬ 
mittee their several credentials of delegations, said committee hav¬ 
ing been regularly called to meet at Aberdeen on the 14th day of 
May, 1912. Upon said date said committee met and considered the 
various sets of credentials and heard arguments for and against the 
same and prepared a temporary roll of delegates to the State con¬ 
vention. The convention was regularly called to order at the time 
and place specified in the call and the delegates to the national con¬ 
vention known as the Taft delegates were duly and regularly named, 
said delegates at large being the ones placed upon the temporary 
roll of this convention by the national committee. 

A majority of the delegates placed upon the temporary roll of 
said State convention attended said convention and participated. 
The various Roosevelt delegations placed upon said temporary roll 
by said State committee neither attended said State convention nor 
asked admission thereto, but on said 15th day of May, together with 
various other persons, met in another hall in the city of Aberdeen 
and selected the various contesting Roosevelt delegations to the 
national convention. 

Under the law of the State of Washington various county party 


141 


organizations are authorized to select delegates to county and State 
conventions or to provide for the election of such delegates through 
the caucus and primary method. There is no preferential primary 
laws in the matter of the selection of presidential electors or delegates 
to national conventions in the State of Washington. In several 
of the counties delegations to the State convention which were un¬ 
contested were selected by the county committees, some of them 
being Roosevelt and some Taft delegations. In not to exceed five 
counties a sort of preferential primary was held; in this, that names 
of various candidates for the presidential nomination were placed 
on the ballot, part of them resulting in Taft delegates and part of 
them for Roosevelt. 

In the matter of the delegation from Chelan County, which dele¬ 
gation is claimed to have been contested, .we find that no credentials 
were filed with the State committee except by the Taft delegation, 
and that the said Taft delegation was placed upon said temporary 
roll without objection. 

In the matter of the Asotin County delegations to the State con¬ 
vention we find that that county committee of said county duly and 
regularly selected the Taft delegation to said convention under the 
existing law. 

In the matter of the contesting delegation from King County to 
said convention we find that the county committee of said county 
by resolution, duly and regvilarly passed, delegated to its executive 
committee all of its powers and functions, under which resolution 
said committee selected a Taft delegation to the State convention. 
The chairman of said committee, however, called a meeting of the 
whole county committee, consisting of 250 members, said chairman 
being leader of the Roosevelt forces in said county. At the time of 
the meeting of said committee said chairman allowed only those to 
enter the hall where said meeting was to be held as in his judg¬ 
ment were, entitled to enter, and when the Taft members of said 
committee entered said hall it was discovered that said chairman 
had illegally and intentionally packed said meeting with 131 men 
not elected as members of said county committee, and who had no 
right to participate in said meeting. On the calling of said meeting 
to order and the naming of the credentials committee hy >aiti diair- 
man, and upon a report of said committee to the effect that nil per¬ 
sons in said room were lawful members of said committee and en¬ 
titled to participate in said meeting, and, upon a motioti to adopt 
the report of said committee, demand for roll call was had, Nvliich 
was denied by said chairman. 


Immediately the meeting broke into a riot, during which time 
the chairman of said meeting and othens stood upon the platform 
of said hall and waved certain papers and documents back and 
forth, which were afterwards announced to have been resolutions. 
No one in said room could hear a single word spoken. No resolu* 
tion was heard read and no one voted or could vote upon any reso¬ 
lution. In a short time the meeting ended, every one leaving the 
room without any business having transpired. The newspapers the 
following day contained the statement that certain resolutions were 
pas.sed at said meeting removing said executive committee and di¬ 
recting .said chairman, who had so unlawfully packed said meeting, 
to issue a call for primaries and a county convention for the pur¬ 
pose of selecting delegates to the State convention. Said purported 
resolution contained a direction to said chairman to name a cre¬ 
dentials committee to make and prepare a temporary roll of said 
convention. Said Roosevelt forces then issued a notice calling for 
said primaries, which said notice did not in any respect comply 
with the mandatory provisions of the law. So-called primaries were 
then held by said Roosevelt forces in conjunction with the Demo¬ 
crats, all judges for said primaries being named by said chairman, 
and no caucuses were held as provided by law. All returns from 
said primaries were made to said chairman and kept by him, and 
according to his own report out of about 100,000 qualified electors 
of said King County but 6,900 participated. The Taft people re¬ 
fused to participate in said illegal and unlawful primaries, and said 
executive committee, acting upon the theory that it had not been 
removed, because no lawful business was or could have been trans¬ 
acted at said county committee meeting and prior to said so-called 
primaries, thereupon named under the law a Taft delegation to said 
State convention. 

In brief, your committee finds as its conclusions herein that the 
temporary roll as prepared by said State committee was lawfully and 
correctly prepared, and further, that if it were incorrectly prepared 
and that any of said contests had been incorrectly decided by said 
committee that said Roosevelt delegations to said State convention 
entitled to sit therein waived all rights by not appearing and re¬ 
questing admission; and 

That the delegates at large from said State of Washington to the 
national convention, placed upon the temporary roll of said conven¬ 
tion, were duly and regularly elected to this convention and en¬ 
titled to be placed on the permanent roll thereof, and it is the recom¬ 
mendation of this committee that the same be done. 


143 


MINORITY REPORT. 

A^"e, the undersigned members of the committee on credentials of 
the Kepnblican national committee, hereby submit the following 
report: 

AVe clearly find that both through the expression of the preference 
of the Republican voters of the State of AVashington by presidential 
primaries and by delegates selected by regularly called conventions, 
that the contesting delegates for Theodore Roosevelt should be 
seated. 

A\T base our report on the undeniable facts that out of the 668 
delegates to the State convention the Roosevelt delegates had a clear 
majority both of uncontested and contested delegates. 

This contest is a trumped-ui) one and is not based upon any solid 
foundation of law or facts. 

That in the judgment of the undersigned members of the creden¬ 
tials committee the failure to seat the contesting delegates would be 
an act of gross and palpable injustice. 

A\T find, therefore, that the following })ersons reported upon by 
the majority of the members of this committee are not entitled to 
seats in this convention and should not be placed upon its perma¬ 
nent roll: 

aS'U/U’ at Jai'fic. —Delegates: Howard Cosgrove, 1{. ]M. Condon, E. B. Beiin, 
William .Tones, W. T. Dovell, Peter Mntty, M. E. Field, A. D. Sloane. Alter¬ 
nates : A. G. Tillingbain, .Tolni T. Phillips, George R. Cortier, W. E. Peters, 
Mowinan Stevenson, Alex Miller, C. P. House, Josiah Collins. 

First district. —Delegates: Hngh Eldridge, Patrick Halloran. Alternates: 
A. E. Mead, L. P. Hornberger. 

Second District. —Delegates: F. H. Collins, E. B. Hubbard. Alternates: C. 
A. Taylor, Alexander Poison. 

Third district. —Delegates: C. C. Case, W. N. Devine. Alternates: T. N. 
Henry, E. bb Yarwood. 

AVe therefore find that the following persons are entitled to seats 
ill this convention and should be placed upon its permanent roll. 

State at lar(/c. —Delegates: Miles Poindexter, Tbos. F. Miirpbine, S. A. D. 
Glasscock, liobert Moran, Donald IMcMaster, O. C. Moore, W. L. Johnson, N. S. 
Richards. Alternates: C. E. Congleton, Wheeler Nance, W. T. Beeks, E. R. 
Brady. D. W. Noble, William Lewis, F. J. Wilmer, J. T. Phillips. 

First district. —Delegates: Frank It. Pendleton, Ja.Tmes A. Johnson. Alter¬ 
nates: .T. C. Herbsman, Herbert E. Snook. 

Scco)id district. —Delegates: Thomas Crawford, Thomas Geisness. Alter¬ 
nates: H. A. Espy, George F. Hanigan. 


Third district . —Delegates: L. Roy Slater, T. C. Elliott. Alternates: .T. C. 
Keller, J. A. Lanliaii. 

H. E. Sackett, Nebrafc^ka. ]). J. Norton, Oklahoma. 

John J. Sullivan, Ohio. Jesse M. Libby, Maine. 

Lex N. Mitchell, Pennsylvania. John Boyd Avis, New Jersey. 
Hugh T. Halbert, Minnesota. A. V. Swift, Oregon. 

Clency St. Clair, Idaho. B. A. Eckhart, Illinois. 

Jesse A. Tolerton, Missouri. ' 

AVithout subscribing wholly to the foregoing statement of facts, I 
recommend the seating of the delegates from the* State of AYashing- 
ton headed by Miles Poindexter. 

Samuel H. Cady, AYisconsin. 
Harry :Shaw, West Virginia. 

B. A. Eckhart, Illinois. 


REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS ON ALL DELE¬ 
GATES ON THE TEMPORARY ROLL WHOSE SEATS HAVE NOT 
BEEN CONTESTED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON CREDEN¬ 
TIALS. 

The committee on credentials further report to this convention 
that they have now reported its recommendations on all contests 
brought before it, and your committee now report and recommend 
to this convention that all other delegates from any State or Terri¬ 
tory and the District of Columbia and the insular possessions that 
have been heretofore placed on the temporary roll by the Repub¬ 
lican national committee be now transferred to and placed upon the 
permanent roll of this convention. 


T. H. Devine, Chairman. 



1 


1 / 




r 








i 


1 




v 


1 


A 


i 


f* 


. -i 

i- 








I 


•i 

r 


y 





f 


I 



(><• 


i 


I 



I 


« V 



1 


4 


T 







» • 


t 



1 


I 


I 


■ 1 ftl 






















0 



I • 


4 





t 


t t 



. ^ . 


• < 

k 



f 

-1 













1 /' *\' ''te 


; v= ; ^ 

, "’ l'^'"V O 0„,.>,VKr 

^ " 0 9 K '*' <* / \ 

: q;* r 

>• 


% ^^‘' ' 0 ^ ' o , '»/^’‘ 

'"r- .f. V>>'‘ *''y<SI&C'. ^ V, 





C y^ 

v •% 


• t -‘» Tr .-' V ’ '^°/'* • 

'K^ ^ 

*" ^ '' - t/ 

,l'^^ „ , aanKT . 




xP 

% 


^ -/ 


✓ , 

^ r o 

3.0 

■" ^ c^// / i/ar 

. . , V * » ~ \ . „ X ' * • ■ ' ” '1/ S . . , - 0 ’ • /‘ 

'V c\ V ^ ^ s ^ v/ Y * 0 

ii «^' :^ m ‘- ,av 



c(- 




f;p ^ 




,V 


K^ O 

rf** ^ O’ 

^ a , J. ^(y 

,.0‘ c '' ■ “ -?^ ^*'' ' " ^ ^b o*^ f 0 ^ # ‘"xi ‘ “ 

" ^ Ml/^ ^ ... .-. ^ -i\ 


oS " 7 ^ >* 

^ X ^ 0 ^ ^ ^ 

<l 

%\ %<^ 





« ' I J> 

*■ yO O . * 

•ly ^ "* V» 

^ K> m ^ ^ ^^^illnlllfc=?S - Xf 

^ ^/y Ji Z .- x^ 



V .m^.^ ■>bo'^ :m 







^ ^ c 



® ^.'yC 

yH 'TV 

•• O -y ' * o ^ - 

■A * = N 0 ’. \# , e., * 





- '^r " 

■if- ,^V * 




:.V '^. 


,v 





> V 

« \ ,> 

“ xOo 

> A y^‘ 

^ r\^ Q-v 

.\^si^''. -e^ 


^ 0 , X ■* ' 0 

. 0 ^ c « ^ <P 


""o o' ? 




‘A'^ - v> "t 


^ '^y 

® O ‘L --!■ 

i. ' ‘''.- 


^ « V ' a 

« aX^ 

► ^ 

\0 !. o -K -f 

rx ^ ^ 

S » « , ^ '*' 3 N 0 ^ ^ 

% ^ 

ff- K V _ !, O 

’ z 



•s A ^ ^ o 

•'' •}.' ,"*, o 

. J-Vj 









0 , I. '*‘ . 0 



A 

^a,A -'<.0 



3 N 0 • \ 






^ ^ V . c^ ' rt- 's ' A a 

^ o * S ^ \' ' . '/ n - . ^ .r\ 




rt M fy 










« A . V*' ^ 'A. V 

^ ^ ^ -.-i. ^o G^ v^"^. % 



y „ . 'k . G r' '/ 

^ ^ » * s ’ V 







»■* ‘'''* °"~°’ > ‘o,\‘'‘^^- . ,^%'’* ■’ 

<0 *\» N\ /m ^ \iii!iiim/' •M ^ ^ 



^fe' i^h\ 


V’ ^ s^ ^ ^ 'T *0, % 


c 


^ 0 ^ K ^ ^0 -v * V S ^ v\ O n , '^ ,U^ 

qV ^ 0 N G ^ ' o O '» , \ ^ V. 1 « „ 'T- " * ^ *^^ 0 X 0 




b’ o ■" ^:/ -s 

^ ^ ^ j ^ ft ^ i L- ^ - K I 

"" ° ’ v'^^ ” 0 '^ s. '^6 

A'- x^ tj - 1 ^^ ; 

L> ^*rv ^ 7y 7/^*^V\V *» Cl^ ^ ^ i\y iP^ 

•©is. 'k'^ 

<3 ^ - . ■» ., 0 ^ 




O 


s' .A 


s' .A 


0 t \ 


:.« 

I o r L. ^ rv 

iV .. . s>;>_ » g 


✓ 

O^ y 

^ ^ ^ ^ 0 N 0 ^ v\>' ^ ^ ^ 

\rw ^ O O 

" 



"‘V” s^-''^'^/’"”' ,V<' v.o \‘ 

A^ ^ ^ ^C 3 c:. ^ 

^ ^ ^ Jy^^BnwK^cfc <k V. /\ A C' 

: ■"’^ .'v'J' ■ ■ 


"Kl. ^ 


°''^ *1^"!'LI' v-j* ^X'” • ‘ ;o^"'c« ~ 


*>^ ^ 

o 0 ^ 




^ \ 




.0 o 


X < 


'^-v ■ ' ' <. » «■ 

^ A^ X- '-' , V? V' «> @11^ * a'^ .i> > 

^ i» '^b cv A ^v ^ V ^ar MSfly ^ y 

^ S ** ^ 0 * X ,0 < “^y ts'-A v!>*y„ .-k 

‘ V*"‘% % fO'^ c»"‘»/<e. **' >^' .>'*, '''o 

0 ^ « ^'<sda ' y/. V*’ - 






x 0 °-<. • 

^ ^ o ^ 

\> ^ ^ o, ^ 9 ^ s'* V ^ * 0 ^ 

^ -yy cX X A^ 

^ \ • ^ 

X^’ sr>^ O 


A^^’ 



I J> ^ 

* ^ ■> 


>J fy 





it it 















